Preamble

The House met at half-past
Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

PORTSLADE AND SOUTHWICK OUTFALL SEWERAGE BOARD BILL

Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.

EAST HAM CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

ESSO PETROLEUM COMPANY BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Vegetables and Fruit (Prices)

Mr. Short: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is aware that housewives in Newcastle-upon-Tyne are being charged up to 2s. for a head of lettuce; and if he will introduce legislation to prevent overcharging for vegetables and fruit during spells of hot weather.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Derick Heathcoat Amory): I am aware that prices of lettuce in Newcastle have been high recently owing to the dry spring. Supplies have improved with recent rain, and I am informed that retail prices are now about half what they were a month ago. The answer to the second part of the Question is: No, Sir.

Mr. Short: Is the Minister aware that we are still paying Is. in Newcastle for a head of lettuce? Is he aware that this applies not only to vegetables but also to fruit and that we are paying 7d. each for apples? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this sort of petty profiteering right through the economy is one of the major causes of inflation?

Mr. Amory: One must realise that the weather has a tremendous effect on the production of lettuce. A year ago, I was getting into hot water in the House because the price of lettuce was so low. That is a good illustration of the exacting responsibilities of a Minister of Agriculture.

Mr. T. Williams: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information about exactly how much of the price of 2s. was received by the producer and how much the producer is getting of the price of 1s.?

Mr. Amory: No, I have not that information exactly. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there is a great deal of competition in the production and marketing of this commodity. The information I have is that in London lettuces are available retail at between 6d. and 1s. according to quality.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that it is possible to survive for quite long periods without a lettuce, even in the hot weather? Would he not agree that foolish people who are prepared to pay 2s. for a lettuce are every bit as much responsible for the high prices as the trader who sells them?

Caponised Chickens

Sir J. Lucas: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1)if he will request the Animal Health Trust or similar approved body to conduct an investigation into the effect on meat-eating animals being fed with broth made from the necks of caponised chickens and the period of any resulting sterility after cessation of such a diet;
(2)whether he has examined the evidence sent him by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South with respect to the effect on meat-eating animals who have been partially fed with broth made from the necks of caponised chickens; and what action he proposes to take as a result.

Mr. Amory: I doubt whether a special investigation into this question is necessary. It is already known that the feeding of chicken necks which contained implants of synthetic oestrogens is dangerous, and a warning is given against the practice in the Ministry's advisory leaflet I am considering whether additional publicity should be given to the warning already issued.

Sir J. Lucas: Is it not important that members of the public who are chicken broth addicts should be warned that this is even more dangerous than nuclear fallout?

Mr. Amory: I am advised that the danger to human beings is very slight. A Question on this subject has been put down to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health.

Mr. Hastings: Can the right hon. Gentleman give some reference or make a statement on this important question with which many of us are not at all familiar?

Mr. Amory: Questions concerning risk to health would fall within the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will take steps under the Food and Drugs Act to oblige distributors of caponised chickens to indicate whether they have been caponised by the injection of hormone tablets.

Mr. Amory: I am consulting my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health and will write to my hon. and gallant Friend as soon as possible.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that if a housewife purchases a cockerel which has been killed early, in the neck of which the hormone pellet is still embedded, and if she then makes a soup or sauce out of the offal, including the head and neck, there must be some danger to the consumer?

Mr. Amory: The Ministry leaflet to which I referred in answer to an earlier Question makes it clear that there may be some risk to human health. The question in connection with which I am consulting with my right hon. Friend is whether that risk is such as to make it desirable to provide additional safeguards to public health or possibly to make Regulations on the point.

Land Drainage (Report)

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is now in a position to make a statement on the implementation of the Heneage Report.

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has now completed his discussions with the National Farmers' Union regarding the findings of the Heneage Report; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Amory: The consultations with the associations and interests concerned, including the National Farmers' Union, which I stated in my reply to my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne)on 5th March would be held, are now proceeding.

Mr. Jeger: Can the right hon. Gentleman throw out any hope that any practical results will come from the discussions which he is now carrying on? Ever


since 1951 the farming interests have been waiting for some results from the Heneage Report.

Mr. Amory: The hon. Member has been very patient in this matter. I, too, am very anxious that results should come from these consultations, and I am hopeful that they will.

Major Legge-Bourke: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the recommendations of the Heneage Report fall into two parts, one of which involves a levy upon everyone whether or not land drainage is needed, and the other seeks to amend the land drainage legislation as it exists at present? As the second is much more urgent and much easier to carry out that the first, will he please carry it out?

Mr. Amory: That is one of the points upon which consultations are now taking place.

Mr. Johnson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the Midlands local government authorities, catchment boards and others seem to think that it is the farming interests which are holding back these discussions? Can the Minister confirm or deny that? In the meantime, many villages have been flooded. We hope that the Minister will get on with this and prevent the distress and damage caused to many villages in the Midlands in the winter months.

Mr. Amory: The point at which there was not agreement among farmers was in regard to the main recommendation, involving the raising of a general rate. The consultations now being held relate to some proposals which I have submitted as an alternative to those upon which I could not get agreement a year or two ago.

Beef Cattle (Export)

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the value of the beef cattle shipped from the United Kingdom to the Continent in the twelve months ended 31st May last and what proportion this represented of the total United Kingdom production of beef cattle for slaughter.

Mr. Amory: Precise figures are not available, but it is estimated that cattle exported to the Continent for slaughter

during the twelve months to the end of May, 1957, had a total value in the region of £8 million; these cattle represented about 4 per cent. of the number slaughtered in the United Kingdom during the same period.

Eggs (Exports)

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the value of the eggs shipped from the United Kingdom to the Continent in the twelve months ended 31st May last; and what proportion this represented of the total United Kingdom production of eggs.

Mr. Amory: The value of the eggs shipped from the United Kingdom to Europe in the year ended 31st May, 1957, was about £610,000. The quantity shipped represented about 0·6 per cent. of the total United Kingdom production in that year.

Mr. Hurd: In regard to any reference which he or any other responsible person makes in connection with these exports, will my right hon. Friend see that it is made quite clear in the public mind that the proportions concerned in the case of beef and eggs are so marginal—4 per cent. and less than 1 per cent., respectively—as to make very little, if any, difference to the home supply either of eggs or of beef cattle?

Mr. Amory: Yes. It is very important that this matter should be understood and kept in perspective. I think that the answers I have given today will receive some publicity.

Sugar

Mr. Wiley: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how the suspension of the surcharge and the payment of distribution payments will affect the retail price of sugar.

Mr. Amory: These changes are equivalent to a reduction in the first hand selling price of refined sugar in the home trade of 1¼d. per 2 lb., which should be reflected in lower retail prices.

Mr. Willey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he would be much more popular if he had done this six months ago? This is rather late for the housewives, who have now begun jam-making. As the retail price of sugar went up by


1½d. a lb. six months ago, we should expect a similar reduction now and not just this reduction of a halfpenny.

Mr. Amory: I think that the arrangements are working out precisely as intended by Parliament when the Act was passed. The hon. Member will remember that at that time concern was expressed by the trade lest changes were made too frequently, and the trade considered that, a surcharge or distribution payment having been fixed, it should be allowed to run for some months without being altered again quickly. That is precisely what happened.

Fertilisers

Mr. Champion: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he proposes to take to bring down the cost of superphosphate and potassium chloride to British farmers to a level not exceeding that paid by Danish farmers.

Mr. Amory: According to the latest figures which are available from the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation, the fertiliser subsidy reduces the cost of superphosphate to farmers in this country to a level below that apparently paid by Danish farmers. I am not prepared to extend the fertiliser subsidy to potash.

Mr. Champion: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that although on 6th June he told me that prices in this country compared very favourably with those in the whole of Western Europe, in fact the figures he subsequently gave compared very badly indeed, and that at the date when he gave them we were 50 per cent. above the figure for the Danes in regard to superphosphates?

Mr. Amory: I must apologise to the hon. Member and to the House if I spoke a little too loosely. When I said that the prices compared favourably, I was thinking of fertiliser prices generally, at the prices paid by farmers here. The hon. Member will find that that is the case. The prices paid by farmers in regard to nitrogenous fertilisers, and, I believe, phosphates, are below the prices paid by European farmers. In the case of potash, the position is different.

Mr. Champion: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he is wrongly informed about potassium chloride? In

that case, we were above the rest of Europe, and 33 per cent, above Danish prices.

Mr. Amory: In the case of phosphates, allowing for the subsidy, we are below the prices, as we understand them, in the rest of Europe and in Denmark. I will check up on the matter, and if I find that the position is different I will inform the hon. Member and the House.

Mr. Champion: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what were the delivered prices of nitrogenous fertiliser in Denmark, France, the Netherlands, Sweden, Western Germany and the United Kingdom, respectively, on 1st June, 1957, on the basis of his most recent information from the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation.

Mr. Amory: I understand that the information for which the hon. Member asks is unlikely to be available from the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation before the end of the year.

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the increase in the retail price per ton of sulphate of ammonia and the increase in the subsidy per ton from 1st July, 1951, to 1st July, 1957.

Mr. Amory: In this period the price of sulphate of ammonia increased by £5 7s. per ton and the rate of subsidy from nil to £8 18s. 6d. per ton.

Mr. Willey: As the increases in the price of this fertiliser make the increase in the price of coal chicken-feed, is it not about time that the right hon. Gentleman did something about the matter? Does he realise that the prices of this fertiliser have fallen drastically in the rest of the world and that we are the only country which shows these increasing prices?

Mr. Amory: I am aware that our prices for these nitrogenous fertilisers compare very favourably with prices in the rest of the world. I am also aware that the subsidy on fertilisers is of very great benefit to the farming community.

Mr. T. Williams: While hon. Members in all parts of the House will agree with the Minister's last observation, does his Department keep a strict eye on the price


movements of these commodities, for which we necessarily provide a subsidy?

Mr. Amory: We take a very great interest in them.

Mr. Willey: As the right hon. Gentleman is out of touch with world prices, I give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

Cornwall Mullet Fishery Byelaw, 1957

Mr. Hayman: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what objections have been lodged with him against the proposed Cornwall Mullet Fishery Byelaw, 1957; and whether he will arrange for a public inquiry to give objectors a full opportunity of making their views known.

Mr. Amory: Objections to the proposed prohibition of shore angling during the winter months at Sennen Cove and St. Ives have been lodged by the Penzance Borough Council, the Cornish Group of Trade Councils, three local angling organisations and five rod and line fishermen.
I intend to arrange for a public local inquiry to be held if the Cornwall Sea Fisheries Committee submits this byelaw to me for confirmation.

Mr. Hayman: Will the Minister bear in mind that his answer will give great satisfaction in West Cornwall, where there seems to be considerable anxiety about this proposed byelaw?

Slaughterhouses

Mr. Hayman: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he proposes to lay before Parliament new Regulations prescribing minimum standards for slaughterhouse construction.

Mr. Kimball: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will give particulars of the statutory standards he intends to lay before Parliament for the construction and equipment of slaughterhouses.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he can yet specify the standards recommended for the construction and equipment of new slaughterhouses.

Mr. Amory: I would refer the hon. Member and my hon. Friends to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill)on 30th May.

Mr. T. Williams: When the new Regulations are provided, will the Minister encourage the building of the slaughterhouses refered to therein?

Mr. Amory: I am very anxious that the slaughterhouse improvements should be proceeded with as quickly as possible, subject, I am afraid, to the necessity for capital restrictions upon local authorities.

Mr. Williams: I hope the Minister is well aware of the fact that many of the existing slaughterhouses being used at present are utterly out of date and hopelessly uneconomic for their purpose?

Mr. Amory: I am afraid that that is true.

Mr. G. R. Howard: When he is making these Regulations, will my right hon. Friend consider the necessity for the closest possible co-operation being maintained with the planning authorities in order to see that when new slaughterhouses are built, the planning authorities, simply because there is no co-operation, do not build houses next-door to these slaughterhouses, thereby causing nuisance and hardship to the people coming to those houses?

Mr. Amory: Yes. The planning aspect is a very important one.

Mr. Willey: In view of the assurance given in the White Paper last year, will the Minister assure the House now that legislation will be introduced in the next Session to deal with slaughterhouses?

Mr. Amory: I repeat what I stated before, namely, that it is my hope that legislation will be introduced at the earliest possible moment that our Parliamentary time-table makes possible.

Australian Meat

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why the deficiency payment on Australian meat is estimated at £3 million for 1957–58 whereas the estimate for 1955–56 was £210,000.

Mr. Amory: The main reason is the decline in beef prices since 1955–56. Contributory factors are estimated increases in the quantity and in freight rates.

Mr. Willey: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain this increase in the call on public funds, because the retail price of beef is 4d. more than it was twelve months ago? Should there not be some relation between the retail price and this increasing charge on the British taxpayer?

Mr. Amory: Of course, there is a connection, but the hon. Gentleman has forgotten that beef prices were exceptionally high in the year 1955–56.

Food Prices

Mr. Lewis: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is aware that the cost of living rose another point last month, that this was largely due to rising food prices, that last week the price of vegetables and fruit rose, and that bread is due to increase in price; and whether, in view of the inflation now confronting the country and as an attempt to prevent further increases, he will now introduce price control on all basic foods for a trial period of twelve months.

Mr. Amory: I accept that price increases of food over the last month or two have been mainly responsible for the rise in the Retail Price Index. This is mainly due to the combined effect of seasonal factors and of the drought. I am not aware that bread is due to rise in price. The answer to the last part of the Question is: No, Sir.

Mr. Lewis: Is the Minister aware that the Government were elected on their declared promise to reduce the price of food, to reduce the cost of living and to make the £ worth something again? If he will not accept the suggestion contained in the Question, can he give us some positive ideas about what the Government intend to do to implement those promises, or at least to restore food prices to their pre-October, 1951 level?

Mr. Amory: I think the country much prefers the food situation obtaining today to that which obtained in the autumn of 1951.

Mr. Willey: As increased food prices have been largely responsible for pushing

us off the plateau, will not the Minister give a better answer than that?

Mr. Nabarro: Has not the principal inflationary impetus been given by the recent increase in the price of coal, the thirtieth since nationalisation, with all the consequential increases on other nationalised industries, on manufactures, and on wages?

Mr. Speaker: I understand that we are to have a debate on the subject this week.

Export of Live Cattle

Mr. Pott: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to implement the recent decisions regarding the arrangements at British ports for safeguarding cattle being exported to the Continent for slaughter.

Mr. Amory: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I have made an Order—the Exported Cattle Protection (Amendment)Order, 1957—to give effect to these decisions. It will come into operation on 22nd August.

Mr. T. Williams: Are any live cattle now being exported to France? Is a journey to France regarded as only small? If live cattle are being exported to France at the moment, does the right hon. Gentleman know exactly what forms of slaughter are used?

Mr. Amory: That aspect of the matter was covered by a statement I recently made in the House. The new arrangements about the treatment of cattle on the other side of the Channel have not yet come into operation, although I hope that they will do so early next month. My Answer dealt with the accommodation, inspection and arrangements for watering and feeding of cattle in this country before they go on board ship.

Sir T. Moore: In view of the public anxiety on this matter, can my right hon. Friend say how long he gives these new proposals to be effective in reducing the suffering involved in this trade? If they do not prove effective, will he then take steps to abolish the trade altogether?

Mr. Amory: The Order to which my Answer refers deals with the arrangements on this side of the Channel, and I expect the new arrangements to become effective immediately. The arrangements


on the other side of the Channel are conditional on the results for which we hope being achieved.

Milk Bars, Brighton

Mr. Teeling: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in view of the fact that the activities of the Milk Marketing Board in offering for retail sale at Brighton articles which are not primarily milk products constitutes an unlawful act outside their statutory powers, if he will take steps to restrain these activities.

Mr. Amory: No, Sir. It is not for me to decide whether the Milk Marketing Board is acting in accordance with the powers conferred upon it by the Milk Marketing Scheme. This would be a matter for a court of law.

Mr. Teeling: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the Board is selling such things as currant buns, biscuits and cheese sandwiches, which have nothing to do with milk products? Can he not do something about it? Is he aware that, as a result of a Question I put to him last week, half these items have been withdrawn from these bars? [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."]. Does he realise how much local people who are trying to make money during the summer resent this activity on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture. Lastly—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a very long supplementary question. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue it, perhaps he will give notice to raise it on the Adjournment.

Mr. Teeling: Does my right hon. Friend realise that we Conservative Members were elected to protect the small people and that they want to know why he will not accept the suggestion in the Question?

Mr. Amory: My hon. Friend's interesting supplementary question covered a good deal of ground. I can sum up by saying that these two Milk Marketing Board milk bars were opened with the full approval and agreement of the Milk Bars Association.

Mr. Teeling: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Whales (Stock Conservation and Killing Methods)

Mr. Grimond: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied that present restrictions on the catch of whales will prevent such a slaughter as to put an end to the industry if not to the whale.

Mr. Amory: I am guided by the collective judgment of the International Whaling Commission, which is responsible under the International Whaling Convention of 1946 for the adoption, subject to the agreement of member Governments, of the necessary measures for the conservation of the whale stocks.

Mr. Grimond: While appreciating what the Minister says, is he aware that there is considerable anxiety that, with the increase in whaling fleets owned by foreign countries, the restrictions will not he obeyed? Is he aware that if the stock of whales is reduced to a level at which whale catching becomes uncommercial, there will be a very serious effect on employment in my constituency and in other places?

Mr. Amory: I agree that it is very important that these agreements should he adhered to, and I think that the member countries are aware of that. As a member of the international body concerned, we are in close touch with the situation and are watching that aspect.

Mr. Grimond: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in finding a humane killer for whales.

Mr. Amory: I am informed much experimental work is proceeding but that a fully satisfactory alternative to the conventional method of killing whales has not yet been evolved.

Mr. Grimond: Is the Minister aware that, whatever the cruelty to horses and cattle, the animal which suffers the most appalling cruelties today is the whale? Its method of slaughter is ghastly. Will he give some assurance that if a more humane way of killing it can be found, he will seek with other countries some method of enforcing the use of that humane method?

Mr. Amory: Any development in the direction of more humane methods of killing whales will receive my strong support.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

Shadow Factory, Coventry (Lease)

Mr. Edelman: asked the Minister of Supply for how long the shadow factory at Radford, Coventry, formerly leased to a subsidiary company of Messrs. Daimler has remained unoccupied; and what steps he is taking to put it to productive use.

The Minister of Supply (Mr. Aubrey Jones): The present lease does not expire until 1st August, 1957. My Department and the Board of Trade are in touch with an industrial firm which has expressed an interest in the premises.

Mr. Edelman: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask that the matter be treated as one of urgency in view of these new dismissals at Daimler's? While I am grateful for the statement he has made, may I ask whether he will make sure that efforts are made to absorb these redundant workers?

Mr. Jones: I accept that this is a matter of urgency, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press me further, because premature publicity might prejudice the negotiations.

Royal Ordnance Factories

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Supply if he can now make a further statement about the future of the Royal Ordnance factory at Radway Green.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: I have nothing to add to the statement I made on 15th July.

Mr. Swingler: Could the Minister give an assurance that there will be no further redundancy at this factory, at any rate this year? Secondly, can he say whether he is vigorously following up the suggestion for converting this factory to civil production in order to maintain full employment for the workers there?

Mr. Jones: I would not say that I could give a categorical assurance as to employment for the remainder of the year,

but I would be very surprised if there were further redundancies at the factory this year. As for civil work, certainly civil work will be considered, subject to the conditions which I mentioned in my statement last week.

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Supply on what date he expects to close the Royal Ordnance factory at Swynnerton; and how many workers will be made redundant in the next three, six, and twelve months, respectively.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: I expect all production to have ceased 'within twelve months. How redundancies will be spread over this period is being worked out and information will be given to the employees as soon as possible.

Mr. Swingler: If the Minister will not reconsider his decision, so as to utilise this factory for some form of civil production, what steps is he taking now, before the labour force of this factory has been dispersed, to interest outside industrial undertakings in its very excellent equipment and site?

Mr. Jones: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and I are in touch with a number of firms over all these factories which are no longer required for defence purposes.

Mr. H. Fraser: Would my hon. Friend, in reviewing the question of maintenance at the Swynnerton factory, consider whether it could not be handed over now to the present employees of that factory, rather than to outside bodies and organisations, to carry it on as at the present time? In view of the fact that contracts are at the moment awarded to outside factories, would it not be possible to retain some of the staff for the maintenance of the buildings and plant and for painting and rebuilding, where necessary, especially if the buildings are to be sold to other contractors?

Mr. Jones: I am anxious to maintain these assets in a condition which will procure for them the best selling price. That is my aim.

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Minister of Supply how the Royal Ordnance factory, Blackburn, will be affected by changes in the rearmament programme.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: I see no immediate prospect of a further reduction of


employment at the Royal Ordnance factory, Blackburn. My intention is eventually to transfer to this factory the sort of work that has in the past been done at the Royal Ordnance factory, Maltby, which, as I announced on 15th July, is to be closed.

Mr. Hynd: Is the Minister aware that that reply will give great satisfaction, not only in my constituency but in those of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle)and his hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. FletcherCooke)?

Mrs. Castle: Will the Minister reaffirm the answer he gave me on 11th March, when he said that the 374 redundancies would, in his view, be the last in this factory, as that answer gave great satisfaction?

Mr. Jones: Perhaps I have a little difficulty in recollecting what I said as long ago as 11th March, but I have given an indication in my first answer that the level of employment in the Blackburn factory is reasonably assured.

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Minister of Supply what Admiralty orders have been given to the Royal Ordnance factory, Woolwich, within the past two years.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: £370,000 worth.

Mr. Mayhew: Is it true that the Admiralty's reluctance to give orders for arms and ammunition to Royal Ordnance factories is because they are not given free enough access to the work in progress?

Mr Jones: It is for Admiralty Ministers to answer for the Admiralty. I am in close touch with the Admiralty.

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Supply the capital expenditure at the Royal Ordnance factory, Swynnerton, in the first six months of this year.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: £116,000.

Mr. Swingler: In relation to the current expenditure on the maintenance or improvement of this factory, will the Minister now give an answer to the question put by his hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. H. Fraser)and assure him that any such expenditure is now for the benefit of those who are on the staff of the Royal Ordnance factory and not for outside contractors in order

to maintain the employment of those who would otherwise be made redundant?

Mr. Jones: I confess that I had some little difficulty in quite understanding the drift of the question put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. H. Fraser). I shall be very happy to discuss the matter with both hon. Gentlemen concerned. As I said, it is my aim to secure as high a price as possible for these assets, and for that reason it is right that they should be maintained in good condition.

Small Arms Factory, Poole

Captain Pilkington: asked the Minister of Supply how many people are now employed at Poole small arms factory; on what date it is to be closed; what is then to be done with it; and what steps he is taking to see that those concerned obtain alternative employment.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: On 13th July, 1957, 838 people were employed at this factory. In the statement that I made on 15th July, I said that on present estimates of work available it would be necessary to close it some time in 1959–60; in the meantime, it will be my aim to find some other user for the factory.

Captain Pilkington: Will my right hon. Friend say why £40,000 has been spent on repainting this factory, refute the allegation that political prejudice has anything to do with this matter, and, finally, say whether up to date he has had any offers for this factory from other firms?

Mr. Jones: To the best of my information, £40,000 has not been spent on repainting the factory. The painting contract is for £3,000, and is being spread over two or three years. The object is to maintain the asset, as I said in answer to an earlier Question, in a condition such as to obtain the best possible selling price.
As for the charge of political prejudice, I hope I can say that I am never actuated by political prejudice. The reason for the closing of the factory is that the change in strategic conditions has made the factory unnecessary for defence purposes.
As for the last part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question, I have received one or two tentative inquiries for this factory, but I ask him not to press me, since I fear that premature publicity might prejudice negotiations.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF HEALTH

Public Health Inspectors

Mrs. Slater: asked the Minister of Health what is being done to encourage more local authorities to train sanitary inspectors.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. J. K. Vaughan-Morgan): The advantages of paid pupillage have been commended to local authorities, and I am confident that the work of the new Public Health Inspectors Education Board will further encourage authorities to review local training arrangements.

Mrs. Slater: While thanking the Minister for that reply, could I ask him what further steps he is prepared to take with these local authorities, who, up to the present, have done nothing in the training of local sanitary inspectors? Other authorities, such as my own, train five or six sanitary inspectors on the average each year, and very often when they have finished their training other local authorities offer them a few pounds more and take them, although those authorities have done nothing to make sure that we get an ample supply of sanitary inspectors.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: We have issued one circular. The hon. Lady raises rather an interesting point. If she has any evidence which she would like to put before me, I shall be grateful to have it and will look at it.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Can the hon. Gentleman say that the position about the recruiting of public health inspectors is how improving?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: Yes. I am glad to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that 40 per cent, more recruits qualified last year than the year before.

Mental Illness

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Health (1)in view of the recommendations by the Royal Commission on Mental Illness and Mental Deficiency that would, if adopted, result in a large number of patients being returned to the community, what consideration is being given to increasing the facilities for training the patients for the rehabilitation period;
(2)in view of the period that must elapse before new legislation can be introduced for the treatment of mental illness, what action he proposes to take to deal with the complaints of wrongful detention and to relax the present regulations regarding allowing mental defectives out on licence;
(3)in view of the recommendations by the Royal Commission on Mental Illness and Mental Deficiency, what action he proposes to take to see that patients in mental intitutions receive better treatment than is now the case and also to curb the present tendency to certify, and so reduce the risks of wrongful detention whilst new legislation is being introduced.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I am studying the many recommendations made in this report, and the views expressed in the recent debate in this House. In particular, I am considering what can be done by administrative means in advance of legislation.

Mr. Dodds: While appreciating that time must be taken on these important matters, may I ask when the hon. Gentleman hopes to have this business completed? Has he any hope of giving a date when a statement might be made?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I know the hon. Gentleman's eagerness for action in this matter. I can assure him that my right hon. Friend and I are just as eager for action as soon as it is feasible and possible. We have asked local authorities and the professional bodies concerned for their views by the end of September, which I think is not an unreasonable length of time in view of the complexity of the report. I do not think I could therefore give a definite, phased programme yet. There are certain matters which can be done without legislation, and I am looking into all of them as far as I can to see what steps we can take immediately; but there are several snags.

Dr. Summerskill: Could the Minister satisfy the general public and certain sections of the Press by telling them whether the proportion of the population of mental hospitals who complain of wrongful detention is significant or not?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I should say the answer is "not". I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for asking that question.

Dentists, North-Eastern Area

Mr. P. Williams: asked the Minister of Health whether he is satisfied with the number of dentists and school dentists practising in the North-East; and what action he proposes to take to improve the situation.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: No, Sir, though there have recently been some welcome signs of improvement. I am considering with the other interests concerned the steps that can be taken to give effect to the recommendations of the McNair Committee on Recruitment to the Dental Profession.

Mr. Williams: Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the difficulties in this matter is probably the shortage of dental schools and training facilities? Will he say what action it is possible to take?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I am well aware of that, and we are actively considering it in conjunction with the university interests, who are very much concerned.

Prescriptions (Composite Packs)

Mrs. L. Jeger: asked the Minister of Health what composite packs are now available for the chronic sick at a single charge under the National Health Service.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: With permission, I will circulate the list in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mrs. Jeger: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the list contains any additions to those of which the House was last informed, as that was a paltry list and of no help to chronic sufferers from diabetes who are still having to pay item by item for everything they need?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I should not call it trivial. It contains nine items. The hon. Lady might like to know that the British Medical Association has made some suggestions and we are discussing those now with the Association.

Mrs. Jeger: Surely the British Medical Association was asked months ago to make suggestions? Is the hon. Gentleman telling the House that really there has been no progress in this direction?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: No, I am telling the House that the British Medical Association has made some progress and we are now discussing its suggestions.

Following is the list:

Atomiser.
Smog Mask.
Vaporiser.
Hypodermic Syringe.
Urine Sugar Analysis Set.
Colostomy Apparatus.
Suprapubic Belt.
Douche.
Higginson's Enema Syringe.

Reciprocal Arrangements

Mr. Russell: asked the Minister of Health which countries have been approached with a view to reciprocal arrangements being made for free medical treatment for British residents and visitors; which of them refused; and what were the reasons for refusal.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro)on 14th March, setting out the reciprocal arrangements at that date. Since then, the agreement with Sweden has been ratified and agreements with Belgium and Israel have been signed. Negotiations with Austria and Yugoslavia are in progress.
No countries have refused to negotiate, but reciprocal arrangements have to take account of the basis of existing services and in other countries the health services are usually based on insurance principles. Some other countries have not so far found it practicable on examination to offer reciprocity.

Mr. Russell: While appreciating the difficulties involved, may I ask my hon. Friend to press on as much as possible with the countries with whom we have made no progress whatever yet—which include most of the countries of Western Europe—in view of the fact that we grant free treatment to any visitors who come here from those countries?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I will certainly do all that lies in my power, but unfortunately, or fortunately, reciprocity is a two-way traffic.

Asian Influenza

Mr. Snow: asked the Minister of Health if he will make a statement regarding the new oriental influenza


epidemic; and what precautionary action his Department is taking.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: There have been no developments since my answers to Questions on this subject on 1st July, except that laboratory confirmation has now been obtained that persons suffering from the Asian type of influenza have arrived in this country. There is, however, at present no sign of any material spread of the infection here so far.

Mr. Snow: Bearing in mind that resistance to this type of infection tends to decrease from the end of September onwards, may I ask if the hon. Gentleman has examined the records of his Department as to the state of public morale in 1917 at the time of the last major influenza epidemic and whether any lesson can be learned from those records? Will he also consider issuing some sort of statement to the public in due course in order to allay anxiety?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I hope my Answer will be noted and allay any anxiety that might arise. All the evidence so far is that this epidemic is and will be of a mild nature in this country. In view of what the hon. Member said about the 1917 epidemic, I should say that I do not think the two are comparable. One has also to bear in mind that there is far more international knowledge and co-operation on these things now than there was then.
If this is a convenient moment for me to give advice to the House as to what hon. Members should do if they are unfortunate enough to get this influenza, the best clinical advice I have had so far is to go to bed.

Caponised Chickens

Sir J. Lucas: asked the Minister of Health if his Department will investigate the effect of human beings who eat artificially caponised chickens.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: asked the Minister of Health what is the latest information he has obtained from the Medical Research Council about the long term effects on the population of this country resulting from the increased sales of chickens caponised by the injection of hormone pellets; and whether he will

consider the appointment of a committee to supervise intensive scientific examination of this question.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: No advice on this aspect of the subject has reached me from the Medical Research Council. I propose to get in touch with them. Investigations in America have shown that ill-effects are very unlikely.

Sir J. Lucas: Will the Minister bear in mind that it would be cheap and painless to carry out experiments on ferrets and dogs by feeding them with the necks of chickens or the heads of caponised chickens, either boiled or raw, and that, in a few months' time, the experiment would enable very sound views to be formed as to whether or not there was any real effect on fertility?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I am sure that the Medical -Research Council will bear all these matters in mind.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: If offal containing the heads and necks of caponised chickens is harmful to large and powerful animals, surely it must have some effect on human beings?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I know that my hon. and gallant Friend was very interested in this subject two or three years ago, and if he has any untoward evidence to give to the Medical Research Council note will be taken of it, but the difference seems to me to be that the heads of poultry are not normally eaten by human beings.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Is it not a fact that if housewives buy two or three caponised cockerels which have been killed early, from which the hormone pellet has not been taken away but is still embedded, and makes soup of them, surely there is some danger of the public caponising themselves?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I am sure that the whole human race will take note of my hon. and gallant Friend's comments.

Iced Lollies (Standards)

Mr. Sydney Irving: asked the Minister of Health what steps he is taking to fix appropriate standards for the purity of iced lollies of all kinds.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I have no evidence that the existing arrangements are not adequate to protect the consumer.

Mr. Irving: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware, first of all, that the demand for these lollies is increasing much faster than the demand for ice cream, and that one firm produced from one factory a million and a half during the heat wave? Is he also aware that, as the Food and Drugs Act, 1955, only prescribed standards for water ices, these fruit lollies are escaping the supervision of the health inspectors of the local authorities and it is urgently necessary that standards should be prescribed?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I am advised that the Ice Cream (Heat 'Treatment, etc.)Regulations apply to most or practically all lollies, but I will look into the matter again.

Expectant Mothers (Minor Illnesses)

Mr. Sydney Irving: asked the Minister of Health what advice he has received from the Medical Research Council on the effects of minor illnesses of expectant mothers on the growing unborn child and, in particular, on the danger of the birth to a woman catching German measles in the first three months of pregnancy of a baby born with a congenital malformation.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: Research into these matters is in progress but has not yet reached a stage when the Medical Research Council is able to advise me.

Mr. Irving: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in view of the publicity given to the statement of certain medical officers about the wisdom of daughters and young girls being infected early with this disease, some guidance ought to be given to the public about it?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I am sure it will be considered as soon as we have the necessary Report.

Dr. Summerskill: Pending the recommendation of the Medical Research Council, will the hon. Gentleman consider the question of registering German measles?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I think I had that question from the right hon. Lady before and had it under consideration, but I think that, on balance, the arguments were against it.

Suspected Smallpox Case, Barnes

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Health whether the case of suspected smallpox in Barnes has yet been investigated; what conclusions have been reached; and if he will state the circumstances in which this disease was contracted.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: Investigations in this case did not confirm a diagnosis of smallpox; the person concerned suffered from a non-infectious skin condition.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEDICAL RESEARCH

Snuff Taking

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Minister of Health, as representing the Lord President of the Council, if he will consult the Medical Research Council for its advice on the taking of snuff as a safe alternative to smoking; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I am advised that although no relationship has been demonstrated between the taking of snuff and the incidence of lung cancer, there is insufficient evidence on the effects of this practice to justify it being recommended as a safe alternative to smoking.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is my hon. Friend aware that it would give a good deal of satisfaction to a number of people—no doubt including hon. Members of this House—if the Medical Research Council could issue a statement saying that snuff taking is a safe alternative to smoking?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: There has been an inquiry on a small scale, which demonstrated no connection, but if my hon. Friend is very interested in this matter, he might like to know that some work undertaken in South Africa has suggested a possible connection between snuff taking and cancer of the nose among the Bantu.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSPITALS

Nurses

Mrs. Slater: asked the Minister of Health to whom the General Nursing Council's inspectors report if adverse conditions are found relating to accommodation for nurses; and what steps are taken to see that defects are remedied.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: The inspectors report to the Council, who bring any adverse crticisms to the notice of the hospital authorities concerned.

Mrs. Slater: Does the Minister realise that there are very many cases of inspections being made at which adverse reports obviously would result and then for a very long time nothing is done? What pressure can be brought to bear on hospital management committees to see that such adverse conditions are remedied in the interest of recruitment for the nursing profession?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I suggest that the hon. Lady puts down a Question on cases she has in mind. I think that would be the best course.

Mrs. Slater: asked the Minister of Health why a nurse who has her State registered nurse qualification but then goes on to do her midwifery course must return to student's pay.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: This is in accordance with the agreements of the Nurses and Midwives Whitley Council.

Mrs. Slater: Could not this be looked at again, because large numbers of nurses who are anxious to take a midwifery course are reluctant to do so, in view of the high cost of living, because they have to go back on students' pay? In view of the shortage of midwives and facilities for midwifery training, is it not advisable that a review of this situation should be undertaken?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: The training allowances are fixed by the Nurses and Midwives Whitley Council, and it is not a matter in which my right hon. Friend can intervene. There is, of course, a small differentiation—extra pay—for those already qualified. I should also point out that the arrangements do not deter registered nurses taking midwifery training. The numbers coming forward are quite enough to meet the needs of the

midwifery profession, but the numbers going on to practise after qualification are not sufficient.

Financial Allocation, Manchester

Mr. W. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Health (1)whether he will take steps to ensure that adequate financial provision is made to the Withington and Crumpsall hospitals in Manchester to enable the matrons of those hospitals to recruit the necessary number of nurses to maintain the establishment; and
(2)whether he is aware that provisional financial allocations for maintenance purposes made to some Manchester hospitals are inadequate to enable management committees to maintain the existing services; and whether he will give an assurance that money will be provided at least to maintain the services provided last year.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: The allocation to the regional hospital board is, in my view, sufficient to maintain services at the level of the previous year and provide for a measure of development and improvement. It is for the board to determine allocations to management committees, and I understand these have not been finally settled for the committees referred to, but that the Board is confident that these committees will have sufficient money at least to maintain the existing services.

Mr. Griffiths: Is the Minister aware that a week or two ago he told one of my hon. Friends that the allocations have not been made but there were earlier provisional allocations made? Is he aware that these figures being lower than the expenditure incurred last year, hospital management committees and house committees were contemplating a whole series of reductions of services, including the closing of casual wards and acute wards and wards for chronic cases, and a reduction in the food standards for staff in the hospitals? How can they possibly maintain the service at the level of last year when the financial allocation is lower than the expenditure last year?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: If the hon. Gentleman will study my answer, he will see quite clearly that I said that the allocations have not been finally settled.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Does the Minister recall that he told me that the number of nurses available in the Manchester area was 812 below establishment? Is not that a very serious situation, and will he do all he can to make the position better next year?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: The recruitment of nurses above the number already employed is a development which must be looked at by the board in the light of all the other developments which are involved.

Royal Free Hospital (Glandular Fever)

Mrs. L. Jeger: asked the Minister of Health how many student nurses at the Royal Free Hospital who contracted glandular fever in the course of their duties come from overseas; and what arrangements have been made for their payment during convalescence.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: Nineteen, all of whom have received full pay during their convalescence.

Mrs. Jeger: Will the Minister make it absolutely clear to the House whether the full pay to which he refers came from the hospital governors? Is he not aware that his right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance refused sickness benefit to several of these girls on the grounds that when they went home for convalescence, as it was described, home was abroad, and they were refused sickness benefit?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: My advice is that one nurse who went home to Malta did not qualify for sickness benefit from the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, but she was paid her full salary by the board of governors and her fare was paid by the board out of non-Exchequer funds.

Dr. Summerskill: Is there not a question of principle involved here, and might not further inquiry reveal anomalies in the Act? Could the Minister say whether, in the event of the hospital telling these girls—there are so many girls from abroad in this country—to go home, they would therefore qualify for benefit?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I should like to look at that question, which involves the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance.

Cornwall Area Hospital

Mr. Hayman: asked the Minister of Health when detailed plans for the proposed Cornwall Area Hospital were deposited at his Department; and what has happened to them since.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: Revised sketch plans were submitted in January, 1957, but I understand that the regional hospital board propose further revisions. The plans have been studied in detail and it is hoped to arrange an early meeting with the hoard's officers.

Mr. Hayman: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary consider six months too long a period for consideration of this plan, and will he do all he can to speed up consideration so that this much needed hospital can be provided quickly?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I will do all I can, but I think the hon. Gentleman should know that, since the Ministry received the revised plans, we now learn that the board is proposing to change its plans in certain respects and is proposing new plans. I will do all I can to bring this matter to a conclusion.

Radiographers

Mr. Monslow: asked the Minister of Health what further steps he now proposes to take to arrest the shortage of radiographers in the health service.

Mr. Parkin: asked the Minister of Health what progress he has made with plans to increase the recruitment of radiographers since his reply to representations passed to him by the hon. Member for Paddington, North last February.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: My right hon. Friend is considering the results of the recent inquiry but is not yet in a position to make a statement.

Mr. Monslow: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the large percentage who have left the Service was entirely due to the salaries prevailing? Would not an improvement in salaries succeed in recruiting a number back to the Service?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I would rather not say anything further pending consideration of the report, but it may be of interest to the hon. Gentleman to know


that I am seeing a deputation from radiographers on Wednesday.

Mr. Hastings: Will the Parliamentary Secretary at the same time give consideration to the employment of part-time radiographers, as I understand there are many who would be ready to go back into the Service were it not for the fact that the scale of salaries for part-time radiographers is very much lower proportionately than that for full-time officers?

Rampton, Moss Side and Broadmoor Patients (Employment)

Mr. Leavey: asked the Minister of Health to what extent patients at Rampton, Moss Side and Broadmoor, who have acquired the necessary ability and would benefit from such work, are employed on new building and on routine maintenance work in their hospitals, in place of Ministry of Works staff.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: Patients able and willing to work are engaged in various occupations as part of their treatment and training. The number able to do efficient maintenance work is small and the problem of security is also a limiting factor.

Mr. Leavey: Will not my hon. Friend agree that this kind of work on maintenance and on new building is probably the most valuable which patients can he called upon to do, and that in the whole field of occupational therapy this is the sort of work which can provide the greatest encouragement to patients? Will he be good enough to consider consulting our right hon. Friend the Minister of Works to see whether the scope of this sort of work cannot be broadened?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I will certainly look at it. In fact, I have this subject very much in mind at the moment, but I am conscious of the difficulties involved in any wide extension of this type of work. The important thing is that we should try to find as wide a variety of occupational therapy and of occupation generally for those patients as my hon. Friend suggests, and I am looking at the matter with that point in view.

CENTRAL OMAN (DISTURBANCES)

Mr. Grimond (by Private Notice): asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs wheher he has any statement to make on the situation in Muscat and Oman; what action is being taken by Her Majesty's Government in regard thereto and the reasons for such action.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): Disturbances have recently been taking place in Central Oman, a remote and difficult area in Arabia, over which the Sultan of Muscat and Oman re-established his authority at the end of 1955. These disturbances have been stimulated by the former Imam of Oman, whom the Sultan allowed to retire peaceably in 1955 to a village in the area. The former Imam and his brother, Talib, appear to have managed to acquire a limited quantity of arms and have been trying to persuade some of the local tribesmen to defect against the authority of the Sultan. While they have had some initial success, the unrest still remains localised.
The Sultan of Muscat and Oman has requested British assistance and this request has been agreed to. The local British authorities are considering with him the best form which this might take. They have been given discretion within certain limits to take military action. Small-scale precautionary movements of our forces have already taken place. I will keep the House informed of further developments.
The reasons for this action are that the dissidents have clearly received assistance from outside the Territories of the Sultan. It is, therefore, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, right that we should respond to the Sultan's request for help. We have had friendly Treaty relations with the Sultan and his predecessors for the past 150 years.

Mr. Grimond: May I ask whether British troops are already in the area and, also, whether there are British citizens engaged in prospecting and other activities in the area who may be in danger?

Mr. Lloyd: There are certain British citizens prospecting for oil at a place called Fahud, which is some considerable distance from the area of disaffection.
At the moment, as far as I know, there are no British troops on Muscat soil.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: My right hon. and learned Friend will recall that in September, 1955, before the International Arbitration Tribunal at Geneva, incontrovertible evidence was given of attempted bribery by King Saud of Sheikh Zaid, accompanied by threats of force. Can my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that due precautions are being taken by Her Majesty's Government against any armed incursions on the part of Saudi Arabia?

Mr. Lloyd: Sheikh Zaid is Sheikh of Abu Dhabi. As far as that area is concerned, we have no reason to expect any trouble of any sort. The other aspects of the matter are certainly being kept carefully under review.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: The Foreign Secretary has made it plain that this is potentially a very grave matter. I wonder whether he could tell the House more precisely what are our treaty obligations in the matter. Would he consider giving us a White Paper, setting out the basic documents and a consecutive account of how the present situation has come about?

Mr. Lloyd: I will certainly consider that matter, but I think perhaps it might assist the right hon. Gentleman if I said straight away that up to 1793 the Sultan of Muscat was also Imam of Oman. Then a separate Imam was elected, who ruled under the Sultan. In 1913 the then Imam revolted and from 1913 to 1920 there was a period of uncertainty. But in 1921 an agreement was reached whereby the Imam was given a certain autonomy within the realm of Muscat. The situation deteriorated towards 1955 for reasons about which some hints have been given today, and in 1955 the Sultan re-established his authority in the area.

Mr. G. Brown: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that we shall respond to the Sultan's request for help. Is he aware that it has been stated in eye-witness accounts that the request cannot be answered at the moment because of a muddle over transport planes; that three Beverley planes could shift the troops required; but that there are simply not enough serviceable troop

carriers anywhere in Middle East Command to shift them? Does he not think that this is uncomfortably like what we heard nearly a year ago? Is he having an inquiry into this?

Mr. Lloyd: I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman that there is no question at all of there not being adequate transport facilities available to lift the forces required.

Mr. P. Williams: In view of the great danger of the situation, can my right hon. and learned Friend give an assurance that there will be American support for British foreign policy?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not think that that question arises. We have decided to take the action we have because of the long traditions of friendship between the Sultan and ourselves.

Mr, P. Noel-Baker: May I press the point which I made to the right hon. and learned Gentleman? Have we decided to take action simply in response to a request, or in virtue of a treaty obligation?

Mr. Lloyd: May I make it clear that we are not doing this under a treaty obligation? We have no treaty obligation to deal with internal affairs in the territory of Muscat. We have certain duties in respect of external affairs, but not in respect of internal affairs. We are giving the full support which we think a staunch friend requires.

Mr. Benn: While thanking the right hon. and learned Gentleman for making absolutely clear that none of the treaties between ourselves and the Sultan provides for British intervention in the internal affairs of Muscat and Oman, may I ask him whether he will give an assurance to the House that British troops, aircraft and ships will not be engaged until the House has been told of it in advance?

Mr. Lloyd: Certainly not.

Mr. Nabarro: In view of the supreme importance of British oil supplies from the Persian Gulf and the fact that allegations have been made in the last few days that the supplies of arms reaching the Imam are modern arms, of American origin, can my right hon. and learned Friend say what representations are being made to the United States in this matter?

Mr. Lloyd: I have no knowledge at all that the arms concerned are of American origin. All that we know is that there are modern arms in the area which must have come from outside the territories of Muscat.

Mr. Wigg: The right hon. and learned Gentleman was good enough to inform my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown)that aircraft were available at the present time. Would he be kind enough to give the House a categorical assurance that the movement of troops from Kenya has not been limited because aircraft have not been available? I am asking this question in the past tense, not the future.

Mr. Lloyd: As far as I know, there has been no limitation upon the movement of the troops required from Kenya by reason of the lack of any transport facilities.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Benn: On a point of order. I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 to draw attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
The decision of Her Majesty's Government to offer British military assistance to the Sultan of Muscat and Oman.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn)asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 to draw attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
The decision of Her Majesty's Government to offer British military assistance to the Sultan of Muscat and Oman.
I think that this submission must fail on the ground of urgency. We have just heard that, at the moment, there are no British troops in Muscat—I understand that to be the position—and we are not in possession of any of the facts of the situation which would entitle me to regard this as an urgent matter.

Mr. Benn: Mr. Speaker, may I submit very briefly the grounds on which I ask leave to move this Motion? First, it is a definite request by the Sultan to Her Majesty's Government, so that of the grounds of definiteness there may be no question. Its urgency arises, surely, on two grounds. There is, first the

Foreign Secretary's refusal to give an assurance that British troops will not be committed before the House is informed; and secondly, that Middle East Land Forces, and also Army spokesmen in Kenya and in this country have made it perfectly clear that military action is contemplated. Only a year ago precautionary measures of this kind did lead, within a week, to armed conflict.
May I, further, put this? It is a well-established principle of international law that intervention by a foreign State in a country where there are civil disturbances is contrary to international law, and that it was on those grounds that the Foreign Secretary condemned Russian intervention in Hungary.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has raised a large number of questions, I would remind him, which might very properly be the subject of an extensive debate, but, under the Standing Order, it has to be one definite matter, which the hon. Member has specified—the decision of Her Majesty's Government to offer British military assistance to the Sultan of Muscat and Oman. What I heard the right hon. and learned Gentleman say was that the British Government had decided to respond to the request of this sovereign for help. If the hon. Gentleman says that it is against any treaty that we should do so, that is a legal matter that he should argue at the proper time.

Mr. Wigg: With respect, Mr. Speaker, you must have misheard the Foreign Secretary, because he specifically said that the intervention was in pursuance of a treaty obligation.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must excuse me. I heard the right hon. Gentleman say that it was not.

Mr. Paget: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely the point of urgency is this. The Foreign Secretary has said that he has issued instructions that British troops may be employed, and committed to battle on foreign soil, not pursuant to any treaty obligations but because it is the way one likes to help a good and firm friend. Now, Mr. Speaker, surely it is impossible to say that an announcement by the Government of an intention to commit British troops to battle on foreign soil is not urgent, that it does not matter.

Mr. Speaker: It was not so specific as that. What the right hon. and learned Gentleman said—and I have just seen his statement—is this:
The local British authorities are considering with him the best form which this might take—
that is, the aid:
They have been given discretion within certain limits to take military action.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Speaker: Order. In my view, unless we know something more about this case—[Interruption.]—Order—and the limits which have been placed on that discretion, I do not think that I can call it under the Standing Order.
May I also remind the House that there are this week four, I think, Supply Days, that next week there is the Appropriation Bill, and that on any of these days this matter can be discussed in all its aspects. That is, in itself, sufficient ground, as has been ruled by all my predecessors, for my refusing to receive a Motion of this sort. It is my view, on what information is before us—which is extremely sketchy—that I would not, in those circumstances, be justified in accepting the Motion.

Mr. Hale: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have ruled on the point of order to the best of my ability. if there is a new submission, I will gladly hear it.

Mr. Hale: I wish respectfully to raise a completely new point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to the fact that you, of your own act, terminated the discussion of this matter when a large number of hon. Members were on their feet desiring to put further questions and to ascertain the facts? Is it not, therefore, unfortunate that there was an immediate Ruling from the Chair that we cannot take Parliamentary action because we have not ascertained the facts, when we were actually prevented from understanding the facts from the right hon. and learned Gentleman by your action in ruling that the matter had already been sufficiently discussed?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is really obliquely criticising my action in the Chair. If he wishes to criticise my action, he knows that there is one way of doing so.
When there are a large number of supplementary questions, particularly after the time for Questions, they tend to drag on to a disorderly debate, and in my view, if this matter is considered important by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen, it should be debated when all the facts can be gone into properly. I do not, at present, think that it is definite enough or urgent enough to justify my accepting this Motion.

Mr. Gaitskell: I must say that I had rather hoped that we should have had an opportunity of putting one or two further questions to the Foreign Secretary, in the light of the point that you, Mr. Speaker, yourself made, that everything was not yet completely clear. I do not wish in any way to criticise you, but I would like to establish that your decision today does not in any way prevent us from proceeding to move the Adjournment of the House tomorrow if, as a result of a further statement, which I hope we shall have from the Foreign Secretary, and further questioning, this seems to us to be an appropriate course to follow.

Mr. Speaker: Of course, what the right hon. Gentleman says is perfectly true. I have come to the decision which I have given on this issue on the information that I have before me but, naturally, if we get further information, that might alter the whole thing.

Mr. Benn: May I point out, Sir, that the Sultanate of Muscat and Oman is a sovereign State? It is not a British Protectorate in any sense. What the Foreign Secretary has said today is something that has not been said since last November, which is that British commanders have been authorised to take military action in the territory of a foreign Power. Admittedly, there are certain limitations, but those instructions have already been issued to military commanders, though the Sultanate of Muscat and Oman is an independent foreign State. In those circumstances, is it not clear that a matter of the very gravest urgency has arisen, on which the House may not have time, if it waits even until tomorrow, to debate properly?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think so, really.

Mr. H. Fraser: Is it not a fact that urgency has been added to this matter, as far as our friends in the Persian Gulf are concerned, by the manifest near-treachery of certain hon. Members opposite?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: May we ask the Foreign Secretary for an assurance that he will give us another statement tomorrow?

Mr. Lloyd: I will certainly consider that matter, and if I have further information I will consider giving it to the House.

Mr. C. Pannell: Are you prepared, Mr. Speaker, to condone the remark of the hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. H. Fraser)? Is it not an un-parliamentary observation?

Mr. Speaker: As I heard him, what the hon. Member said was "near-treachery". I do not know what he means by that, but it is a very undesirable expression to use in this House. I deprecate the use of such language very much, but I cannot say that it falls within the limits of un-parliamentary language.

Mr. Paget: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Has not urgency been added by the Foreign Secretary's latest intervention? He has said, first, that he will not give us an assurance that British troops will not be committed without his coming to the House, and he now says that he will not give us an assurance that he will make a statement even tomorrow. I would respectfully say that the urgency here is that if it is left to one of the opportunities later in the week—even if it is left until tomorrow—the very thing which is the basis of those British troops being committed to battle on foreign soil may have happened.

Mr. Speaker: I would remind the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget)that what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said was:
Small-scale precautionary movements of our forces have already taken place. I will keep the House informed of further developments.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman has said that he will, if he has anything further to say. I think that the House should rest content and wait for something which may make such a Motion as this definite and urgent. At present, it is not so, to my mind.

Mr. Fernyhough: While it may be true that this week there will be further opportunities for discussing this matter, many of us on this side of the House are very much afraid that British troops, especially National Service men, will have been committed to battle before we get that further opportunity, and some of us are very much opposed to that. That is why we think it is urgent, so that we might restrain the Government from committing a second Suez.

Mr. Speaker: That is all very hypothetical for me at the moment.

Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Foreign Secretary this question, Mr. Speaker? We are anxious to be kept in the closest touch with the situation. At the moment no British forces are engaged. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman would give a definite undertaking to come to the House tomorrow and tell us what further developments, if any, have taken place and whether any British troops have been committed by then, I think that would, at any rate, give us the opportunity of raising the matter if we should feel it necessary to do so tomorrow. Will the Foreign Secretary give that assurance?

Mr. Lloyd: Certainly, Sir.

Mr. Wigg: If between now and tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, it is decided that questions from this side of the House are not near-treachery but treachery, would you be good enough to persuade the Prime Minister to have a General Election and let the country decide?

Mr. Speaker: I have no influence over the Prime Minister in these matters, except to call on him now to move the Motion which stands in his name.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[The Prime Minister.]

Proceedings on the Consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Naval Discipline Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[23RD ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1957–58

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a further sum, not exceeding £20 be granted to Her Majesty, towards defraying the charges for the year ending on the 31st March, 1958, for the following services connected with the Roads Programme, namely:—

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1957–58



£


Class IX, Vote 2 (Roads, &amp;c. England and Wales)
10


Class IX, Vote 9 (Roads, &amp;c. Scotland)
10


Total
£20

Orders of the Day — ROADS PROGRAMME

3.53 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: We start this debate with a large measure of agreement. Every hon. Member must agree that our present roads system is hopelessly inadequate and if allowed to grow worse or even to continue as it is will gravely threaten the nation's welfare. I think, too, that there is general agreement in all parts of the Committee, apart from those who occupy the Ministerial Bench, that the Government's roads programme does not go far enough or fast enough to cope with the serious situation that confronts us—a situation which is bound to deteriorate alarmingly during the next eight years. I say eight years because at the present rate of increase, the number of vehicles on our roads will double in that period.
Our imagination boggles at the prospect of double the number of cars in the streets of London or on the main industrial roads that traverse the Midlands. Yet this is not a fantastic nightmare that will disappear in the morning. The doubling of the number of vehicles on the roads is practically certain, and it is a horrible certainty that has to be accepted and dealt with. Moreover, there

is this to be borne in mind. Doubling the number of cars on the roads does not mean doubling the traffic congestion. It will probably mean trebling it.
The importance of having a roads system which enables traffic to flow freely is obvious, but it can also be supported by statistical evidence. Two figures are particularly revelant. One is that we spend 14 per cent, of our net national income on road transport and road travel. That is the proportion calculated by the Road Research Laboratory. The other is that three-quarters of all our expenditure on transport is on road transport.
But it does not require statistics to prove that our economy is being damaged by the present inadequacy of our roads. It is plain to anyone who drives on a route frequented by heavy industrial traffic. He will get all the evidence he needs, by painful personal experience, that owing to the narrowness of our roads, the constant cross-roads and the congested towns and villages through which our main roads pass, vehicles are taking twice as long as necessary to complete their journeys.
Let us forget for the moment the consequence in increased road accidents and the maddening annoyance to private motorists in their leisure hours, and consider what the delay in the flow of commercial traffic means in purely economic terms. It means, of course, that far more men are employed far longer hours than are necessary to transport the goods that have to go by road. It means that the consumption of oil and petrol—expensive imported products—is much higher than it need be. It means that the increased wear and tear of all vehicles materially reduces their useful life.
But what does all this boil down to in figures? According to Dr. Glanville, the Director of the Road Research Laboratory, the economic loss from delays amounts to nearly £30 million a year for each mile per hour dropped in speed due to congestion, and that does not include anything for travel outside working time. If we had motorways, as many Continental countries have, our traffic would be able to travel at a speed of at least 10 m.p.h. faster; but supposing we had roads that enabled our industrial traffic to move at 5 m.p.h. faster, that would save the country £150 million a year now, and by 1965, when the number of vehicles is likely to


be doubled and delays are likely to be trebled, there would be a saving of £450 million a year—a formidable figure.
Yet it is a realistic and, as far as possible in this field, a scientifically accurate forecast, made by the Government's own Research Laboratory, of the appalling burden that will be put on Britain's industry in a few years to come unless, by that time, there is a transformation in our roads system. An annual burden of £450 million on British industry means that the resources of the nation as a whole and all its people will be diminished by that amount each year.
There is, I think, one other figure which is worth mentioning in this connection. Dr. Glanville reckons that the loss calculated on the same basis, but including people travelling outside as well as inside working hours, would be not £450 million a year but £1,350 million a year.
That is the extent of the problem stated in cold, economic terms. No one can or will deny its seriousness. The question we have to consider is whether the Government's programme is large and bold enough to deal with this critical situation. In other words, in 1965 will the congestion on our roads be less, as we hope, or, as many of us fear, much worse?
It is not possible categorically to say to what extent the Government's programme will meet or fail to meet the crisis. One can, however, make certain comparisons, the most obvious being that with the amount of new roadwork being done in other countries. For this purpose, it is, perhaps, fair to leave out the United States, whose roads programme is immensely greater than ours, but whose resources are, of course, also, immensely greater.
Let us take the major European countries. They are not as wealthy as we are, and their road problems are not as serious as ours, yet we find that they have spent, are spending, and intend to spend in the coming years comparatively much larger sums in road development than we in Great Britain.
Take, first, recent expenditure. According to figures published in the E.C.E. Economic Report for 1956, in the three years 1953–55 the percentage of

gross national product invested in new roads in various European countries was as follows: Sweden, 1·12; Belgium, 0·60; France, 0·69; Netherlands, 1; West Germany, 0·75; Italy, 0·74. For the United Kingdom, the figure was 0·09, less than one-ninth of the average for those European countries.
When these figures were quoted in the House a little time ago, the Minister said that that was in the past, and that we were spending much more today. That is all very well, but there was no reason why we should not have had as big a roads programme as these other countries during those past years. Even today, however, our performance comparatively, although not as bad, is still bad.
True, this year we are spending very much more, but most of these European countries also have expanded their road-making activities, as many of us in the House saw for ourselves during recent visits to the Continent, when we were all greatly impressed by the ambitious and rapidly increasing road programmes of a number of European Governments. We are still lagging behind, although we have a far greater backlog than most European countries and—I re-emphasise this—their traffic problems as a whole are not as acute and urgent as ours.
So much for the past. What of the future? At present, we are working on a five-year programme for 1955–59 in which about £250 million of schemes will be authorised, about one-quarter of it, I understand, being on large projects. Authorisation, of course, is not the same as execution. Nevertheless, it is expected that, by 1959, actual expenditure may amount to £50 million a year, nearly double the expenditure of this year. It is not only the belief of the Opposition, but it is the belief of many outside authorities concerned in this matter, that even this peak expenditure will be well below what is required even to prevent present congestion becoming worse, to say nothing of reducing it.

The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Harold Watkinson): I think that the right hon. Gentleman's figure is wrong. He said £250 million, but I think that it is, in fact, £150 million.

Mr. Strauss: I read a report of something said by the Minister himself, in which he said that our present scheme


envisaged the authorisationof £250 million during this present period.

Mr. Watkinson: Yes, but not in the current four years.

Mr. Strauss: No; "authorisation" is the word I used.
Why have the Government been so backward, timid and slothful in their road programme? Incidentally, I hope that we shall not hear the debating point so often put forward in this connection, that the Labour Government spent far less during the immediate post-war years.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: Why not?

Mr. Strauss: No European Government was able to spend anything at all, or hardly anything, during that period.
I suggest that the answer to the general question I put is that the "powers-that-be" in this country, the financial powers, still have an antiquated and wholly false approach to this problem. Money is made available for our national industries and services because they can show that such new capital investment will pay. They can draw up carefully worked out estimates showing that the investment of so much money in new mining equipment, in new power stations, or in modernising the railways will result in an increased earning capacity of so much per cent. each year.
For such approved capital expenditure the nationalised industries obtain the money either from their own resources or by borrowing over a long period. All is well; they get the money they want. In fact, three-quarters of their new capital requirements have been raised by borrowing.
In building new roads, there is no direct, tangible financial return. According to normal accountancy, expenditure on new roads is a dead loss, a dead loss, moreover, which falls on the Budget. No wonder, therefore, that spending money on roads is, apparently, unattractive and road transport has become the Cinderella of our national services. Yet the provision of roads is as essential a service to industry and the public as the provision of power.
For new roads we have a capital investment programme for the present five-year period amounting to about £250

million, while that of each one of the other nationalised services is immensely greater. The electricity programme, for instance, for the eight years 1957–65, envisages a total of nearly £5,000 million.
Whether this delay in getting on with a large and adequate roads programme arises from the fact that, in the provision of capital for new roads, the incidental financial benefits which flow to the nation are ignored, or from the fact that such expenditure is an immediate burden on the budget, I do not know. Perhaps the Government will tell us; they are responsible. What is certain is the serious effect on Britain's industrial prospects and general prosperity if this neglect continues.
We are all aware, of course, that making new roads may have a certain inflationary effect, but no more than any other capital expenditure, private or public. Our charge is that, out of the total capital expenditure in recent years, new road making has not had its proper priority; indeed, it has had no priority at all. When opening the Road Exhibition on 24th June, the Minister stated:
It is my job, as a member of the Government, to see that roads get their fair share of the general capital development programme, taking all other demands into account.
My comment is that that certainly is his job, and it is equally certain that he has fallen down on it.
Recently, the desirability of new road construction through loans has been advocated in many responsible quarters. It is done in this way in many Continental countries. In principle, there is no difference between raising money by long-term loan for a new power station and raising it for a new road. Raising money for road making in this way would certainly be rather more expensive, but, if the burden on the annual Budget is the obstacle to a truly adequate roads programme, then, for heaven's sake, let the Government adopt a road loan policy.
As far as I am aware, there is no other obstacle. The engineers are there, ready to do the work. Equipment in quantity and quality is available. The necessary raw materials do not have to be imported. None of these things is holding back the Government from taking the obviously necessary action to prevent the whole of Britain's traffic being reduced, in eight


years' time, to a snail-like pace or even to one vast traffic jam. Do the Government, I wonder, appreciate that, with the European Free Trade Area by that time in operation, any additional burden on industry such as this may have dire consequences?
I want to say two things more before I sit down. I have been very brief because I am anxious that as many hon. Members as possible may be able to speak in this debate. I know that many on both sides want to do so. First, is it not the utmost folly to build roads now that are out of date even before they are finished? On Friday, I saw the Minister, on television, opening the new Markyate by-pass.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: It was Ashford.

Mr. Strauss: I thought it was Markyate. I think that that road, like the Markyate road, is one with only three lines of traffic.

Mr. Watkinson: No.

Mr. Strauss: I am very glad to hear it, because my reference was to the Markyate road, which many of us saw a little time ago. It seems to be utter lunacy to build an important bit of road like that, which is to form a link in one of our principal main roads, capable of carrying only three lines of traffic. That is not the only road which is being built that way today and which is so obviously wholly inadequate to modern traffic requirements.
My second point can be mentioned in one sentence. It has been the universal experience that where motorways are built the number of road accidents falls substantially and immediately. The question of road accidents uppermost in the minds of all of us.
For all these reasons, we take this opportunity today of asking the Government to shake themselves out of their complacency. We ask the Minister when he replies not merely to enumerate the number of road schemes which are in operation—we know that there are many road schemes in the present programme—but rather to tell us how far short that total programme is of our minimum requirements and what drastic new steps he proposes to overtake the arrears and to measure up to the future.

4.12 p.m.

The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Harold Watkinson): Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak shortly now, because there are one or two things that I should like the Committee to know, and when my hon. Friend winds up at the end of the debate he can deal with specific points on which hon. Members require an answer. I do not think that the position is quite clear and I should like to make it so.
I do not disagree at all with the views of the Road Research Laboratory. It is the Laboratory's job to advise the Government on these matters and its views on the importance of increasing the roads programme because of the actual and prospective increase in traffic are very important. I have taken careful note of them.
There is one point which I must make before dealing with the future. The right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss)was correct in saying that there should not be a lot of politics in the road argument. If so, we must, as a House of Commons and as a country, look for the reasons—they are not entirely the concern of any one party—why the roads programme is not further forward today than it is.
The first reason is a world war, in which no road works of any significance were done. The second reason is that in 1947 the Socialist Party, then the Government of the country, brought forward what then was known as the Barnes plan for a complete network of motor roads. It was a very good plan. Today, of course, it is already out of date. Although at the time that it was brought forward it was a good plan, it is only right to say that it was never implemented and, therefore, the present Minister of Transport faces the fact that he has a backlog of twenty years in which no major road building has been done. Whether one likes it or not, that is the fact.
Bearing in mind that a useful by-product of our present prosperity—and I am delighted to see it—is the increasing amount of car ownership, of all kinds and in all sections of the population, it is not surprising that our roads are extremely congested, particularly at weekends. I am not a bit surprised, nor do I wonder at all at the complaints of motorists and


motoring associations and other interested parties who say that is high time that something was done about it. I agree with that entirely, subject only, as I have said, to the fact that it must be realised that we are trying to overtake a period of twenty years when no significant work on roads was done at all.
The authorisations by the Labour Government of the day, after the Barnes plan was dropped in the financial crisis of that year, amounted to less than £20 million. The Labour Party is now grumbling because we are building up those authorisations to £60 to £70 million a year. Perhaps that is not fast enough, but we must start from the factual statement that we cannot overtake a twenty years' backlog in no time at all and, of course, the present roads programme began only in 1954. It has not, therefore, been running for very long.
I do not apologise for saying that there are other things that the Government have to consider. In my own sphere, as the right hon. Member for Vauxhall said, there is the modernisation of the railways. There is the building of new airports. There is the new airport at Gatwick, for example, which will bring us an immediate return in more air traffic, more tourist traffic, and so on. There is the enlargement of harbours and many other projects, to say nothing of the atomic energy programme. If, therefore, we are to keep a fair balance, we must measure the progress with the other capital tasks that have to be performed.
Let us look for a moment at the authorisations in the roads programme as far as it has gone. I take little notice of the E.C.E. report. It is a valuable document, but it goes only to 1955 and the roads programme started only in the middle of 1954. That document, therefore, is not a very accurate record of how our performance compares with other countries. I do not believe that our roads programme is lagging, as, I think, hon. Members will realise before I finish my remarks.
Authorisations during the first year of the programme, 1954–55, amounted to £19 million, a very small sum; in the second year, 1955–56, £28 million; and in the third year, 1956–57, £34 million. In the current year, the total will be over £65 million and I can tell the Committee that

next year it will be substantially more than £65 million.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Is that expenditure or authorisations?

Mr. Watkinson: I have just said, authorisations. Nobody can carry out a roads scheme unless the Ministry authorises it. Therefore, that is the best measure to take.
Let us look, also, at schemes actually started. I have taken out a convenient period from March, 1955, to June, 1957. In round figures, 2,500 schemes have been started at a cost of £42 million. Those are starts, not authorisations. Work has started on nearly 2,500 schemes in that period of only just over two years which will cost the country £42 million. I do not make any apology for that.
As to the future, which is why I thought I would intervene shortly at this stage, because I thought that I might enable the debate to be more objective, I cannot help saying that it is not often that HANSARD presents us with many gems which are worth recording, but for a moment the oracle has slipped. HANSARD the other day, speaking, presumably, of myself, said that
I can reasonably be expected to have a life of not less than ten to fifteen years even under heavy traffic."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th July, 1957; Vol. 573, c. 34.]
I hope it is true; that is all I can say.
In all roads programmes we must look ahead and plan over a cycle of years, as, I am sure, all hon. Members recognise. Therefore, what I have tried to do is to lay down some general guiding principles on which the Ministry can work, which, I hope, will give us the best roads system in the shortest possible time. It is worth mentioning those principles briefly.
My predecessors, the present Secretary of State for the Colonies and the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, did an immense amount of work and laid the foundation for this programme. Indeed, when I went to Ashford on Friday, to open the new by-pass, which I am glad to tell the right hon. Member for Vauxhall is a double-track road of the highest motor road standards—I was only getting the benefit of the work of my predecessors. I wanted to try to draw together all the immense amount of work which they started in the planning stage into a


specific plan which would give us immediate results. As to the very long-term plan, I have set up a small planning section in the Ministry which is considering roads over a cycle of twenty years and is trying to do all the slide-rule calculations about increased traffic.
I wanted to try to give the Department and the local authorities, who, after all, matter because they build the roads in most cases, a specific plan for the immediate future. That plan is a three-point plan. It is to try to make a start on a major network of trunk roads, many of them built to motor road standards, which means that no other traffic but motors will be on them. Secondly, to clear away urban bottle-necks, because if we do not clear them away we shall be very disappointed with the economic effects we get from the motor roads. Thirdly, to try also to have a reasonable amount of smaller works, that is, something costing under £100,000 all over the country, to try to make a contribution to specific problems in specific places.
That is the programme which has been initiated and which I want to carry forward as quickly as we can. I will not delay the Committee with many details at this stage, but it might show that this is a serious programme if I say that a great many of these schemes are at least started, or have been planned. They mean eventual double-tracking, by which I mean twin roads, on the Great North Road from London to Newcastle—and the building as soon as possible of a motor road, including the St. Albans bypass, which will go from south of St. Albans to just south of Birmingham. I hope that we shall be able to start letting the contracts for that road before the end of this year, so that work may start at the best climatic moment next year. This is a road of 55 to 60 miles which will cost well over £250,000 a mile.
There is also the continuance of that road north-westward to Preston. The Preston by-pass, a motor road, is well under construction and the Lancaster bypass which will lead on to it is now under way, too. The authorities are working on the line of the road between Birmingham and Preston. It will cost a great sum of money. It will be about 95 miles long and will cost over £30 million. A draft scheme was published in April and

if all goes well it should be possible to start constructional work by the end of the financial year 1958–59.
Then there is the Midlands-South Wales Road, to which I attach great importance because I think that it could bring new life to the South Wales ports by making them more accessible to the industrial Midlands. The work on the Ross Spur, the remainder of that road, 23 miles long and costing about £6 million, should be started before the end of the year if I can overcome the few remaining objections.
The right hon. Member for Vauxhall mentioned the European Free Trade market. We must have a better road to the Channel ports. The Medway towns by-pass will be a motor road which will fit in and give better access from the south to the Channel ports.

Mr. Percy Wells: Can the right hon. Gentleman give a starting date for the Medway towns by-pass?

Mr. Watkinson: Certainly not, because I have not managed to persuade all the agricultural and other interests involved as to the line of the road.
Finally, comes the road to the West, making five main projects.
The most recent of the urban bottleneck schemes is the Hyde Park Corner scheme, which, as soon as the L.C.C. obtains its Parliamentary powers, will be started. There is also the Cromwell Road extension, which is well known to hon. Members, the Birmingham inner ring road, started early this year, and the Stretford-Eccles by-pass.

Mr. W. G. Cove: Is the right hon. Gentleman tackling the Port Talbot scheme?

Mr. Watkinson: That is being delayed because local interests wanted a revision——

Mr. F. H. Hayman: rose——

Mr. Watkinson: I cannot go through the catalogue of schemes, otherwise I shall delay the Committee. I am quite prepared to deal with the general subject. Hon. Members can then make their speeches and if specific questions are asked my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary can answer them at the end of the debate.
All I say at this stage is that this main programme is not insignificant. I think that the priorities are right, and the programme will be pressed forward. In addition, each year £80 million have to be found for maintenance and minor improvements. I know that the Government do not find all that, but they find a large proportion of it. Therefore, it is nonsense to say that this country already—and I will come to the future in a moment—is not spending a very substantial sum each year on its roads. The £80 million a year on maintenance and minor improvements bring the figure actually spent to well over £100 million and it will soon rise very much higher still. In addition, authorisations, which are the beginnings of all road works, are rising at a very fast rate indeed.
A roads loan and many other devices proffered to me would not help. If I thought that they would I should certainly consider them most carefully. I have already examined the roads loan proposition. I am not entirely satisfied that it might not be possible to develop some kind of loan specifically for specific projects, such as bridges and tunnels, but I do not think that at this stage in the roads programme a roads loan would expedite the building of roads at all, because roads have to have a share of the capital investment programme and I think that we are getting for the roads a fair share of that programme.
For the future, I have said what my priorities are and I hope that hon. Members will understand if I do not propose to issue lists of specific schemes, large and small, stretching years into the future. Therefore, if hon. Members ask whether such and such a road can be included they may receive a disappointing answer, because I have come to the conclusion that we must set our main priorities. I have set mine—work on motor roads, clearing of urban bottlenecks, and then as many smaller schemes all over the country as we can manage. If we do not keep the programme flexible in that way we shall be disappointed with our progress.
The last snag is that in this country—and in this we differ from practically every other—we face an immense task of orders, inquiries, and so on, before we can even buy the land; and until we buy the land we cannot build the roads. Many people say that we should

legislate to sweep some of these difficulties away, which I assure the Committee cannot be swept away without legislation. I have considered that many times, but I am not prepared to take away from people the right to complain and object if their lands and buildings are taken from them. I do not think it right to deprive them of that right. Perhaps I can encourage the Committee a little by saying that in the long term it will not affect the speed of the roads programme. It is like a problem of inertia, in mechanics. It does not limit the top speed, but it takes longer to get there. Because we wasted many years after the war in getting on with the job we have been longer in starting.
I want to make my position perfectly plain. I am not prepared to over-ride rights to objection. I am not prepared to cut down the legislative safeguards which people ought to have if their property and land is taken away from them. Therefore, we must proceed merely by trying to get enough schemes going forward so that we avoid delays.
If we accept this scheme as a blueprint for the future and try to press on with it, is it the right thing to do? I believe that it is very necessary to examine the roads programme from the point of view of its economic benefit to the country. The right hon. Gentleman was correct in saying that that should be the yardstick by which we should judge a roads programme. The kind of programme which I have tried to outline is one which will certainly continue beyond 1958–59, the end of the present four-year programme, which incidentally, has committed about £150 million worth of road works, or will have done by the time the end of the programme comes.
It has been necessary, therefore, for the Government to examine the implications of continuing the programme in relation to the capital investment programme as a whole. Perhaps I ought to say that "capital investment" is, I think, often a misleading term. There are many kinds of capital investment. Some pay off quickly, while others do not. It is obvious that some are more remunerative than others.
I have always felt strongly that transport, speaking of it as a whole, must be modernised and must, therefore, have a


reasonably large capital injection in the next few years if we are to remain a competitive Power in a very competitive world; and when I refer to transport I certainly do not exclude roads. It is also helpful in that respect to point out that a roads scheme brings its benefit quickly, because it makes an immediate effect on the flow of traffic. Take, for example, the situation at Ashford, where there have been many time-wasting, and thus money-wasting, delays. The opening of that road on Friday means an immediate end to all those problems.
Therefore, roads are not a form of capital investment which does not bring a reasonably quick return, and as it is the Government's view that the nation's most immediate need is a very rapid upswing in efficiency and productivity, and that that is the right way to secure our continuing prosperity, the roads programme is a form of capital investment which, in the Government's view, certainly ought to be continued.
If that is so, how do we propose to do it? What I propose to do—the Government agree that it is the right policy—is to try to get on with the broad programme that I have outlined as quickly as ever I can. The Ministry will try to advance as rapidly as possible the programme which I have outlined this afternoon. I have not gone into immense detail, because we must keep ourselves flexible. We can always put a scheme into operation as soon as it is ready, and other schemes which may have been promised may have to be delayed for reasons outside the control of my Department, perhaps because of objections or for other reasons. So I will not particularise more than I have already done in the broad outline which I have given to the Committee.
It may give the Committee some idea of the size of the programme if I say that I should propose to put in hand over the next four years—that is to say, from 1958–59 to 1961–62—road improvement works which will ultimately cost the Exchequer about £240 million. That is a very considerable advance on the present programme, and a very considerable advance on anything that this country has so far done on roads, and in my view it compares more than favourably with what any other comparative

country is doing, except, perhaps, America.
This is the cost of doing what I want to do, namely, to keep the pipeline of road schemes full and thus obtain the maximum rate of actual road construction. That is what we want, not more plans. We have had too many plans in the past, too many which were not implemented. What we want now is some road construction so that the country can see and realise its benefits. The price of keeping the pipeline full is to put in hand schemes which will ultimately cost the Exchequer some £240 million.
That I shall do, subject only to one thing, something to which all capital investment programmes are subject, and that is that the country's economy is prosperous and buoyant enough to stand it when it has to be committed. That is the background against which one must see every capital investment programme, and it is certainly the background against which one must see this one. I am clearly on the record as saying that I will not build roads at the expense of increasing a runaway inflation or prejudicing our export programme. Subject to that requirement, I want to get on with the job. I hope that the figure which I have given the Committee will be taken as an earnest of the fact that we will get on with it and that the tempo of road building will be increased.
Some criticise our civil engineering industry. They are wrong to do so Some criticise our road engineers. The only trouble is that these people have never had enough work to do. I hope that my Ministry will now give them a great deal to do. We shall also give the local authorities and their county engineers and expert staffs a great deal of work to do. The House of Commons will expect—I know I shall—those responsible to do the work as quickly and as expeditiously as they possibly can.
That is the challenge that I should like to issue today to all those concerned with building roads. They have at last got a chance to get on with the job that I know they want to do.
The more quickly they get on with it the better I shall be pleased and the more economic benefit shall we get at a time when we shall need it very greatly—over the next few years when our competitive


power in the world will, perhaps, be the one thing which stands between us and complete and utter disaster. Therefore, the Government feel that this expanded roads programme is justifiable in the economic climate of the time, and the sooner we get on with it the quicker shall we draw the benefit from it. I hope that all concerned will press on, and if they do no one will be more pleased than I and the Ministry.
I thought it was a courtesy to the Committee for me to intervene at this stage to outline the future. I have done it very sketchily and very quickly. Those who want to ask questions will no doubt do so, and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will answer them at the end of the debate, although neither of us is anxious to stand in the way of those who want to make their own speeches.
This afternoon I have announced a very material increase in our road building programme. I have also announced the general way in which we propose to press it forward. I am not prepared to go further than that because, as I have said, what the country now wants is more roads and not more plans; it wants something ascertainable and, if I may use the word, concrete to see and use.

Mr. Hayman: The right hon. Gentleman made a reference to a road to the West, but did not go beyond that. Would he amplify it sufficiently to enable us to know whether he meant the road would end at Bristol, or whether it would continue beyond there to the South-West?

Mr. Watkinson: The end of that motor road project is either Bristol or a Severn bridge. As planned at the moment, it does not continue beyond that to Cornwall.

4.50 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Holt: It is with some relief that we have heard the Minister's speech this afternoon, because it had been put out to the Press that the right hon. Gentleman was to announce a cut in the roads programme. Whether that rumour was carefully put out by his Department to make his speech appear all the more acceptable to the Committee, I do not know, but for what other reason this rumour should have been started I cannot think.

Mr. Watkinson: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he has made the most extraordinary statement. If he really thinks that the Department acts in the way he suggests, I must ask him to withdraw what he said. The Department is not in the habit of misinforming the Press, and the Press must draw its own conclusions. I have taken the earliest opportunity to inform the Committee of the roads programme on which the Government have decided.

Mr. Holt: I will certainly withdraw any serious implications in what, I agree, was a rather facetious remark, but what appeared in the Press did seem a little odd, and I am sure that many hon. Members have been greatly relieved to hear what the Minister has said.
I am particularly glad that the right hon. Gentleman was able to indicate that the north-south motor road through Lancashire may be started in 1958–59. People in Lancashire were particularly pleased to hear this, because some disappointment was caused by a remark made at the recent opening of the Lancaster by-pass. I think it is well to draw attention to the importance of developing these motorways in a fairly continuous process. As far as the North-West is concerned, the Preston by-pass and then the Lancaster by-pass are the most important parts of that new road and it is perfectly right and proper that they should have been tackled first. However, the great benefits that will be obtained from these by-passes will be lost if the remainder of the motorway is not very soon to follow.
I am particularly glad that the right hon. Gentleman has indicated not the detail but the scope of the plans which he proposes for the future. It is the scope of the programme for the future about which we are all concerned. Anyone can argue whether it is better to start a scheme this year rather than next, but there can be very little argument about how unsatisfactory, even at the present time, is the programme of new construction.
One can be misled by making too many comparisons with Continental countries. The terrific congestion from which we in this country suffer is quite apparent, and I think that we must look at the matter from a British point of view alone.


Whether what is proposed is twice the size of what is being done in France or only half the size of what is being done in Belgium is largely irrelevant. As the Minister said, it is a question of the return that can be obtained from capital invested in roads and also of urgent needs.
The right hon. Gentleman very nearly, but not quite, cleared up a remark which he is reported in the Press to have made recently to the effect that it was not his job to build roads for pleasure purposes. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary can deal with the point when he replies. The Minister made a comment towards the end of his speech today which seemed to refer to that matter. I gather that what he really meant was that roads for pleasure purposes were secondary requirements and that he proposed to build roads where they were most required for commercial. including export, purposes. As reported in the Press, it appeared that he was unconcerned with providing new roads required primarily to take people to the South Coast resorts or to resorts on the East and the West Coasts.
Pleasure is very important. There is really no point in having great capital expansion and in vastly increasing the standard of living—perhaps even doubling it in twenty-five years—if people cannot get some enjoyment out of it. Enjoyment to many people is the possession of a car for the first time. If, when they go out at the weekends, they spend most of their time stationary in a queue they will consider that their extra efforts to increase their standard of living have been hardly worth while.
There are one or two questions I wish to put to the Minister upon which, perhaps, the Parliamentary Secretary might make some observations when he replies to the debate. I entirely agree with the comments which the Minister has made from time to time that it is not only a matter of building motorways; that we have got to do something about our cities. I should like to know more about several things.
First, what is the right hon. Gentleman doing in connection with the powers already possessed for the setting up of parking meters? What is being done about the building of multi-storey garages?

Have any specific directives been sent out from the Ministry? Have any plans been made? Has it been suggested to local planning authorities that a number of areas should be earmarked per acre per city for multi-storey garages and how many cars should be able to be parked in one given acre of a city? Have there been any detailed talks on the matter, and, if so, have they gone further than the Minister's office?
I should also like to know what progress has been made concerning testing stations of the type set up at Hendon? Is there now any liaison between the Ministry and the planning authorities with reference to the creation of precincts to deal with the problem in cities? I know that in the town plan for Bolton it is envisaged that certain areas in the centre of the town will be cut off to through traffic and that there will be a small precinct into which vehicles may come to offload goods. The area itself will not he available for ordinary private transport. It seems to me that this is the natural and "absolute must" as far as the development of our cities is concerned. I should like to know whether the Ministry is in the closest possible contact with the planning authorities regarding the creation of precincts and the segregation of vehicular traffic from, for example, shopping traffic, either on bicycle or foot.
There is one last point I wish to raise, and I hope that it will be in order. It is a matter which is, perhaps, not the responsibility of the Minister of Transport although it is connected with roads. I suspect that it really comes under the Home Office. Last Friday, the Chief Constable of Lancashire announced that he was setting up a radar system for catching speeding motorists in the county. This radar eye can apparently detect vehicles travelling at more than 30 miles an hour.

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche): The hon. Member is not in order in discussing that matter on this Vote.

Mr. Holt: I will not pursue the details of it, Sir Gordon, but it seemed to me that it was related to the traffic problem with which we are dealing. I only wish to say that it does not seem to me that our traffic problem will be solved by the


kind of secret police effort which it is proposed to start in Lancashire, and that it is far more important that we should get on with the expansion of our new road construction work. The kind of thing which the Lancashire County Police—

The Deputy-Chairman: The Lancashire County Police have nothing to do with this Vote.

Mr. Holt: I am sorry, Sir Gordon, I will now finish on that point. There cannot be a solution to our roads problem other than the building of new and bigger roads. Any idea that there is a cheap way of solving our traffic problem, whether it is congestion or accidents on the road, other than by spending vast sums of money, is, I think, a complete illusion.

4.56 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Russell: I am sure that we are all grateful to both the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss)and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport for the brevity with which they have opened this debate and I will follow their very excellent example.
The right hon. Member for Vauxhall mentioned the estimate made by Dr. Glanville about the loss due to congestion and things of that kind. I think that one of the main problems from which we are now suffering is that in the past we have underestimated both the loss due to traffic congestion and the rate of growth of traffic. Even Dr. Glanville, in 1950, apparently was wrong when he estimated that by 1960 there would be 61 million vehicles in this country, whereas today already we know that there are over 7 million. I think that congestion is one of the chief drawbacks in this country and that we have hitherto hopelessly underestimated this problem. I hope that we are not still underestimating it today.
Perhaps an example of that is, as many of us have seen, the far greater advance made in Paris and in Brussels in the building of underpasses. Even before the war, in Paris, there were nine underpasses at various places in the centre and on the outskirts of Paris. There is not one here except, presumably, the Holborn Viaduct, which was built about 1870 and had nothing to do with traffic congestion at all—it was merely a matter of levels—and perhaps the Archway, at Highgate.
It seems appalling that we in this country should be so behind places like Paris and Brussels in matters like that. Again, I only hope that we shall not underestimate this problem today.
On the question of expenditure, I should like my right hon. Friend to say that he would not rule out the question of a roads loan in the end. He said that he was against it at present because it was not possible, but I hope that he will bear such a loan in mind, because other countries seem to be using that method successfully. If it is possible to speed up our roads programme by methods involving loans, I hope that we shall not be backward in doing so. We were told when we were in Brussels, a short time ago, that the expenditure on building the Brussels—Ostend motorway is expected to redeem itself completely within ten years. I think that that shows how great the return is on building new roads of that kind and in the colossal relief to traffic congestion.
My right hon. Friend also mentioned the amount being spent on other programmes like coal, electricity, gas and railways and said that we had to compare our expenditure on roads in the main with all those things. I think that the amount that we are spending on roads is very small compared with the £6,000 million which is to be spent on coal, electricity, gas and railways up to 1970, on top of about £2,400 million already spent on those four industries since 1948.
I wonder whether our road expenditure is adequate when we bear in mind that this sum is being spent on those four industries in twenty-two years. Our roads are a vital method of communication and the extent to which they are being used has grown enormously in the last few years and is likely to go on growing.
Finally, I should like to mention the question of underpasses, in which I take a particular interest, because I believe that they are a method of solving the traffic problem on roads leading out of cities, as has been done in other countries. The hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt)stressed the need of dealing with this problem of traffic in the cities. It is not much good building new motorways to connect places like London and Birmingham if it takes half an hour or more to get to the beginning of the roadway


from the centre of London and perhaps the same time from Birmingham. We have to try to improve the ways out of cities as well and I suggest that instead of thinking of building huge new roads inside cities, costing enormous sums, we should eliminate the cross traffic which is the main cause of congestion and thereby achieve our object more cheaply.
If anyone doubts whether cross traffic is the chief cause of congestion in cities I would mention two examples. One is Oxford Street, where there are very few parked cars and where the no-waiting regulations are obeyed better than anywhere else. There, there is still an enormous amount of congestion caused by cross traffic. If my right hon. Friend could arrange to have all the traffic lights in Oxford Street switched to green for ten minutes on one day, I am sure that the traffic would move at a pace which would surprise everyone; but I should not like to be in one of the side streets at the time.
Another example is the Great West Road. I think I am right in saying that there are 11 sets of traffic lights there between one end and the other. The Great West Road is wide enough for three lines of traffic in each direction yet it still takes, for the distance covered, an inordinate length of time to travel over that road. That is because one is stopped every so often by the traffic lights. That goes to prove that the main cause of traffic congestion is not the narrow streets, or the amount of traffic parked in them, but the fact that one gets stopped at traffic lights at numerous intervals.
About two months ago I put down a Question to my right hon. Friend asking whether underpasses could be made at a number of road junctions in and around London in future years. I am sure that that is the way to solve this problem and I hope that my right hon. Friend will press on with this as speedily as possible and give as much thought to the problem of getting out of cities as to travelling faster between cities.

4.59 p.m.

Mr. Charles Pannell: I wish to take up the Minister on one point which he made concerning the necessity of getting consents and rights.

I remember that when he made his initial announcement about the great new motor roads to the North, he gave a figure, which I cannot recall at the moment, comparing the time that it would take to obtain the consents necessary with the amount of time required to build the roads. At the time I made a mental reservation that, generally speaking, if the navvies worked no harder than the solicitors we should never get the roads built at all.
It seems to me that, although we must cherish rates, as things are at the present, particularly in regard to road making, there are far too many facilities for those people who will impede the building of roads. I speak of this as one who has been a member of a local authority and who has had to negotiate over long periods of time. I think that the old adage that, while minorities have their rights, majorities must govern, applies in this field as in many others.
Let us consider the question of speed in relation to the roads programme. I sat as a member of the Kent County Council from 1946 to 1949. My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. P. Wells)was also a member. Whatever may be said against the Labour Government and the Barnes plan introduced at that time, we had not then to reconcile all sorts of local committees with regard to the by-pass road for the Medway towns. I consider that an outstandingly shocking example of a problem which should have been overcome by now.
There was an occasion when my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede)was Home Secretary and he travelled to Folkestone to perform the opening ceremony at a new police headquarters. My right hon. Friend took so long to get to Folkestone—because he could not get through Rochester—that he arrived when the proceedings were over. That was an occasion when, presumably, as Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend had the usual classy military outriders to accompany him: but even so he could not arrive on time. In Kent today no one, if he knows the road, tries to go to Margate or Ramsgate on a Sunday. Those who do try do it because they do not know the road or, alternatively, because they need their heads examined.
A similar problem confronts people travelling to the North of England over the question of the Doncaster by-pass. One has to wait minutes or hours outside Doncaster. This is fantastic; and yet these things have gone on for a period of years. I do not wish to make political points when discussing the roads programme—although it appears to me that the Minister attempted to make one or two—but I consider that we should draw a sharp distinction between the position which existed at the end of the war, when there were shortages and it was necessary to have priorities, with the position today.
In 1945–46, when the Labour Government came to office, they had two jobs to do. One was to pull up the economy by its boot straps, bearing in mind the imminence of the American loan and things of that kind, and the second was to create the foundations of the Welfare State as we know it today. I do not know what would have been the programme of priorities adopted by the party opposite, had they been returned to power at that time, but I am fairly sure that the roads programme would not have been high on the list.
There is no question that today this is an aspect of capital expenditure which deserves the highest priority. As I have said before, I think it ridiculous, when in our factories and production plants we endeavour by time and motion study to save a fraction of a second of time on this or that operation, that when the capital goods come to be transferred to the ports we are prepared to waste minutes and hours on the journey. I cannot imagine a greater time waster than the conditions which exist on our roads today.
I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell the Committee something about the Blackwall Tunnel and the Rotherhithe Tunnel, and whether it would be possible to have one-way traffic through those two tunnels at certain peak hours of traffic. In 1935–36 I travelled every day through the Black-wall Tunnel, and there was a time in 1931–32 when I used to travel over the river to Croydon, so that I think I am familiar with the conditions in that area as well as anyone else. In view of the improvements which are being made I cannot imagine why the Government

should not analyse the peak hours for traffic through the Rotherhithe and Blackwall Tunnels and decree that within those hours there shall be one-way traffic. That would result in a considerable speed up. I would not advocate one-way traffic for all hours of the day, and one knows also that there are occasions at night when there is not a great deal of traffic through the tunnels.
As a resident in Kent, I know that if one wishes to travel to the north side of the river, and it is necessary to use the Woolwich Ferry, even when three ferries are being operated it is still quicker to go through Blackwall Tunnel. I appreciate, however, that big lorries can save a great deal by waiting to be ferried across. Perhaps the Minister will inquire into this matter. Before coming to this House, my work was connected with transport on the south side of the River Thames and I claim to know South-East London fairly well, particularly the Kent area.
Is the Minister satisfied that we are pressing on with the Dartford Tunnel as fast as we should in order to deal with the traffic to London? Bearing in mind that that scheme was on the way and that there was a pilot scheme before the war, it seems to me that if there has not been procrastination, at any rate there has not been feverish activity over the building of this tunnel. The provision of the Dartford Tunnel for traffic from south-east London would do more to relieve the traffic problem than anything else I can think of, and the Minister might indicate when we can expect to see that tunnel in use.
I conclude by returning to the point I made at the beginning of my speech. It seems to many of us, particularly those hon. Members who have had experience of local government, that it is the legal gentry rather than the navvies and road builders who are the biggest proscrastinators when it comes to building roads.

5.8 p.m.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: I wish to be the first to congratulate my right hon. Friend—I am sorry that he is not at present in the Chamber—on being the first Minister actually to carry out a roads programme of any size in this country since the war; and also on being the first Minister of Transport to


announce a second stage of authorisations in a plan which he has already carried out. In that connection we should not forget that three years ago my right hon. Friend the present Colonial Secretary obtained the first authorisation of £50 million from the Government for a substantial roads programme; so that both the present Minister and the present Colonial Secretary can share the credit for getting road building started in Britain.
The war years and the post-war period, and indeed a hundred years of the railway age, has left us with much to do and a long way to go. On 28th November last year I asked a Question of my right hon. Friend about the 8,270 miles of trunk roads in this country. I elicited the very important and astonishing fact—I think it will surprise hon. Members on both sides of the Committee—that as much as 80 per cent. of our trunk roads are still only two-lane highways—that is, with one carriageway in each direction. Only 5 per cent. are four-lane carriageways and the remaining 15 per cent. are three-lane roads. This means that four-fifths of our arterial roads have yet to be brought up even to a three-lane standard, let alone a four-lane standard.
Let me give an example which is probably well known to hon. Members, the road from Southampton to London, the A.33 and the A.30. It is an arterial road of strategic importance and one of the first roads seen by American visitors to this country. Apart from the Winchester by-pass and the Great West Road, the whole of that road is a narrow, dangerous twisting two-way highway. It must be a shock to visitors from abroad.
Many people loosely describe expenditure on roads as inflation. That is not my view. If expenditure on roads be inflationary, it is equally inflationary to spend money on electricity, coal, gas and so on.

Mr. A. E. Cooper: I do not think anybody would suggest that the expenditure of money on roads of itself is inflationary. What is suggested is that the aggregate expenditure on the services is inflationary, unless it is matched by a comparable amount of saving.

Mr, Gresham Cooke: My hon. Friend may be right, if we consider the total in relation to savings, but I suggest that, taking each specific item of capital expenditure, if it brings in a return, it is not inflationary. For example, is it suggested for a moment that the £1,400 million we have spent on electricity supplies since the war, if it continues to bring in a return, is really inflationary? I do not believe so. It may be arguable whether the money spent on the coal industry is a little inflationary, because we have not yet had the return from it, although we are hoping for it. When we consider that over £3,000 million has been spent in the last nine years upon four industries, as compared with only £125 million on roads, it will be seen that roads have not had their fair share of capital expenditure since the war.
I hope to prove to the Committee that capital expenditure upon roads shows a proper return. Dr. Glanville, Director of the Road Research Laboratory, has estimated that, on the average, roads provide a return of 10 per cent. upon expenditure. I have been favoured with some facts and figures supplied by the Highways Administration of Holland, which made a detailed investigation of certain matters concerned with the motorway which runs between Amsterdam and Utrecht, as compared with the old road. The old one was 23·5 miles in length and the new motorway is 19·8 miles long. The average time taken by a motor car to travel the old road, going through the towns and villages, was 46 minutes, whereas the average time taken on the new road is 26 minutes.
The remarkable fact is that owing to the lack of delays upon the new road the fuel consumption at the higher speeds is 4·2 litres for a car, as compared with 5·3 for the old road. The figures are even more remarkable for heavy lorries. In that case the time has been reduced, as between the old road and the new, from 58 to 36 minutes, and the fuel consumption from 8·1 to 6·5 litres. Therefore, on that 20-miles long stretch of motorway, there is a saving in time of about 40 per cent. and in fuel of 20 per cent., as compared with the old road.
If we were to relate those figures to a stretch of arterial road in this country, which carries at least 4,000 lorries a day,


we would see that there would be a saving in wages of one-third every hour and if my calculations are correct a saving in fuel which together would total at least £250,000 a year. On top of that there would be the savings made by motor cars and motor cycles. I am sure that the total fuel saving and the saving of wages would give a much bigger return than the 10 per cent. modestly claimed by Dr. Glanville.
That is the reason why Holland, which, after all, has a hard-headed race of inhabitants, has built 300 kilometres of new motorway since the end of the war. We have not managed to complete one new motorway. Germany is building at the rate of 100 kilometres of new motorway every year, on top of the 3,000 built before the war. Both those countries, which must have some regard to the business side of affairs, have road programmes about five times larger than ours, in relation to their own national incomes.
I will not make any pungent remarks about the speed of road building, or compare the time taken over the Markyate by-pass with the fact that Germany is building new roads at the rate of six miles a month. We could not build six miles in two years at the present rate.

Mr. C. Pannell: Has the hon. Gentleman estimated any write-down as between the road builders and the legal gentlemen?

Mr. Gresham Cooke: I shall come to that point in a moment. I am now talking of the actual rate of construction. I realise the difficulties that we have, in having had only short lengths to give to contractors up to date, in being more heavily built up than Germany, and having the difficulties of underground drains, telephone wires and the rest, going through some built-up areas, but I think that we could make much greater progress than we have made in the past.
It is very sad to think that four years must elapse from the planning of a road to the time when it is opened, even if it is only a mile long. As the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell)has said, there is first all the legal work, the inquiries and the planning to be done, and all that takes about two years. Even allowing an interval of nine months for inquiries, I suggest that the legal and

planning work could be done in parallel and more quickly than in the two years which is now normally taken. A year is then taken up in placing the contracts and a further year or so for the actual construction. That is how the four years are taken up.
My constituents in Twickenham, which is ten miles south-west of London, use the Cromwell Road extension a good deal. They are asking why it is taking so long to complete. Last January some very quick progress had been made on this road. Dual carriageway lengths were opened for half a mile or so, and then there were half mile lengths, and other distances, of single carriageway. But since last January hardly any progress has been made along the Cromwell Road extension beyond Hammersmith. Indeed, because of the work to be done at Hammersmith the traffic congestion there at present is considerably worse than it was a year ago. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am pleased to know that I have some support from my hon. Friends. I hope that during the Recess my right hon. Friend will visit some of these sites and ask the contractors why it is taking so long.
I know that hon. Members on this side of the Committee are sometimes blamed for picking holes in workmen for not working hard enough. This has nothing to do with workmen; it is purely a question for surveyors and managements. They should be sufficiently alive, to be able to complete a few miles of road out of London quicker than they are now doing.
The debate is of necessity a short one, so I will not speak for more than another minute or two. We have the most congested roads in the world, and we have a road problem which we have failed to solve in this century. I believe that the Victorians would have treated this problem more vigorously and in a more thrusting manner, judging by the way they built the railway lines in the last century. It is purely a matter of internal economy. The public keeps telling us that it is never jam tomorrow but always jam today, on the roads. We are, however, looking forward with considerable expectation to the completion of the present programme, pushed on by my right hon. Friend with the greatest speed


and celerity, and we are also looking forward to the completion of the further programme of £250 million which he has just announced, from 1958 onwards.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Boyd: I cannot hope to speak with any thing like the authority or expert knowledge of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke), but it is a pleasure to follow him and to take up one or two of his points. He said that in proportion to national income Germany was spending five times as much on roads as we were. However, that may be an over-statement of the case. A country with a larger area has to have a larger mileage of roads in proportion to the population in order to maintain communications. We probably have to spend more per mile in this country, especially in the most congested areas, as we can spare the land less easily.
None of us wants to push that argument too far. We are facing increasingly stiff competition, especially from European competitors and, most of all, from Germany. During the next twenty years that competition will gradually increase as plans for the European Free Trade Area come into operation. Industrialists everywhere are rolling up their sleeves and, in many ways, getting ready for stiffer competition in which there will be great opportunities for some industries to expand their sales, but dangers for others.
If we are to make the most of those opportunities and to guard against those dangers, we shall have to remove obstacles to our trade. It is well known that we are often hampered by having longer delivery periods, a factor in that being the difficulty of getting vital components from one industrial region of the country to another. We should not bother overmuch about congestion on roads leading to holiday resorts. There are other ways for people to get recreation and, anyway, people can drive to holiday resorts at different times of the day or even on different days of the week. If there is congestion because of holiday traffic, there is no great loss to the country. People can always amuse themselves by the roadside.
But any delay in communications between industrial regions is very serious.

I am puzzled whether the Minister intends to build roads where they are needed, or where he will find the fewest obstacles from local interests. I hope that we can be assured that the roads will be built where they are most needed. I was puzzled by his reference to the road from London to the Midlands and Lancashire. He said that it started from St. Albans——

Mr. Watkinson: It starts from St. Albans as a motor road. The "dualing" of the road between there and London is now proceeding, but that part cannot be a motor road because of the densely populated areas through which it passes.

Mr. Boyd: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for elucidating that point.
Can he assure us that the Ministry is regularly analysing the amount of traffic and congestion at certain points on the main routes through industrial regions, and that priority for clearing certain sections of congestion is based on scientific analysis of the traffic, the degrees of congestion and on the necessity to give priority to industrial traffic with a definite export content?
As an occasional user of the roads, it has occurred to be that we are not always spending where it is most needed and that in remoter districts we may be spending a little extravagantly. Travelling about the remoter country districts, one is impressed by the standard of roads in the countryside. The difference between German and English country roads is impressive. Our rural roads are outstanding, whereas in Germany, apart from the autobahnen, the roads are very often bad. The Germans' problem is opposite to ours. They have to bring their local lesser roads up to standard, whereas we need trunk roads to enable us to compete on equal terms with the Germans.
Is sufficient attention being given to trunk roads designed to carry fast moving traffic? There was a hint in the Minister's speech about banning stationary vehicles on main trunk roads. Can he assure us that he has something in mind about that? One of the most serious obstructions on main trunk roads is parked vehicles. Trunk roads should have sufficient lay-bys and that before anyone drives on a major road he should understand that it is a vital industrial artery and that there is no question of being allowed to stop,


except in a lay-by, without a very good excuse. I understand that on the German autobahnen there is a moderate lowest permitted speed which serves to clear the road of horse traffic and any other non-motorised traffic. If anyone wants to stop to look at the view, he has to go to a lay-by, out of the way of other traffic.
A key point in planning trunk roads is whether bends can be negotiated at reasonable speed. A great volume of traffic can travel German autobahnen at high speed because for hundreds of kilometres bends are curved gradually and are correctly cambered so that drivers know they will not suddenly meet an unexpectedly sharp bend but can go, for example, from Cologne to Munich and Salzburg—about 700 or 800 kilometres—without meeting more than a slight bend. Timetables are thus enormously reduced.
Going westwards out of London, one has hardly moved away from one traffic light before one has to start slowing down to negotiate a roundabout. We have been told that in eight years we will have twice as many vehicles on the roads as we now have; possibly it will be four times as many in a limited period after that. We are getting to the stage when we cannot carry traffic without absurd congestion completely jamming up our cities and main traffic routes. We will have to have traffic travelling on two levels.
In parts of London we may have to develop a system whereby north-south roads are at one level and east-west roads at another level. Footpaths could be at different levels so that pedestrians would be safer while they were shopping and such a system would also give more shopping space. We have to consider drastic solutions, especially for getting into London and out of London quickly.
I was very struck by the way our roads have been built in bits and pieces. We have excellent stretches of highway which are better than autobahnen, but which suddenly come to an end leading into single line traffic with road works on one side. Is tie Minister working to a plan by which he intends to make long stretches of 50 to 100 miles continuous dual carriageway with two lines of traffic, with a proper barrier, hedges or walls, in between to prevent head lights dazzling oncoming vehicles? Or is the work going on in bits and pieces? Are they to be

linked up by a long-term plan even if it has to be spread over ten or twenty years?
We would like to be assured that the Minister is thinking and planning that there shall be long stretches of main road from London to beyond the Home Counties, where the traffic can keep going at its own cruising speed. There should not be traffic lights or cross roads, which should go either over or under. I recognise that the Minister cannot do this all at once, but there are lots of ways of tackling the difficulties and linking all these sections up into a general plan.
The Minister mentioned the West Road going as far as Bristol, but did not seem to have made up his mind whether the road went over a Severn bridge or down to Cornwall from there. Can he clarify that point? I should think it clear that South Wales and Bristol together were an industrial region of sufficient importance to be connected with London by one of our major industrial arteries. There should be a proper trunk road or motorway going right through from Swansea to London, passing close to Cardiff and Bristol and over the Severn Bridge, to service all those towns.
Our connections with the Continent need to be improved a great deal. I hope that London will become more and more the political centre of Europe, and especially of N.A.T.O. There ought to be first-class highways between London and the principal capitals of the Continent. How far is the Minister including the Channel tunnel in his plan? Sections of the road from here to Bonn anyway—not so much to Paris—are already in a good state, and the Minister has just been opening another section of it, in the Ashford by-pass. Are these isolated bits, or part of a scheme which will ease the traffic south-east as it passes through London, which is very bad at the moment?
The whole approach to the Continent gives a bad impression to visitors to this country. The road from London to Dover is, in particular, very forbidding, quite apart from the question of passports and the Customs formalities at Dover. British Customs officials have the reputation now of being the only ones in Europe who take their work seriously, and make it difficult for people to travel. The passport people do the same with the questions they ask.
Apart from all that, the roads should be there. We should now be planning a completely modern highway through the middle of London to the South-East, down to the Channel tunnel and from there to Paris in one direction and to Brussels and Bonn in the other. A lot of the work has already been done. There is a very fine highway already from Brussels to Ostend. We can soon make up the road on either side of the Channel tunnel. We must connect up the bits and pieces, which are in good shape, and so enormously speed up traffic. I hope that all these things are going ahead; I quite understand that we cannot do it all at once.
Is the Minister thinking of the inner sections in the middle of London which form part of the trunk routes? I understand that he takes responsibility for the trunk routes outside London, but that, inside, he leaves the responsibility to local authorities. I am sure that local people will not be willing to spend money on other people's traffic going through trunk roads in their locality. The road deteriorates when it comes to the middle of London, where traffic is heaviest and road making is rather expensive. This should continue to be a Ministry of Transport route right through the middle of London as well as outside.
Those are all the points I want to make. We all know that the country has neglected its roads for twenty years. We had a very good system at one time especially our rural roads, which are still of high standard by comparison with the rural roads of other countries. We are badly behind only in regard to trunk roads. It was possible to live on our fat through a period of crisis and war and of the post-war aftermath, but in the next twenty years we should be ready to spend at twice the normal rate to make up for the twenty years of neglect. I hope that the Minister will do his work not merely in bits and pieces but will plan highways on which fast-moving traffic can travel long distances without interruption.

5.36 p.m.

Mr. Norman Cole: The view has been expressed in some quarters as mentioned in this debate, by the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss), that a new

road programme has an inflationary effect. This is presumably because of the money spent on the rebuilding of the roads. I would voice my opinion most strongly that such is not the case. Merely because the immediate effect of the expenditure is not visible is not to say that the expenditure is inflationary. In terms of both direct and indirect results, a road programme can pay for itself in the course of ten years.
The life of a major road in this country is far in excess of ten years. The road programme on which my right hon. Friend is embarking is far from being inflationary; on the contrary, it is the most anti-inflationary project imaginable. In our researches into this matter, we must take account of some of the fantastic figures of the growth in the number of vehicles. It is stated, as a limited estimate, that we shall have 10 million vehicles on the road by 1965, which will be another 2¾ million in the next eight years. What is to happen after 1965? The ownership and use of road vehicles will go side by side with what, I hope and trust, will be the prosperity of this country. It should not be our object to interfere with the right of anyone, man or woman, who wishes, in his personal degree of prosperity, to purchase a motor car. Our object should be to do our best to provide roads on which the vehicles can travel.
I put in a plea in regard to the development of the industrial area of South Bedfordshire. I hope that in any money which my right hon. Friend obtains for the road programme the needs of that fast growing and important area of South Bedfordshire will be in mind. I hope that it will have its fair share of the money spent on the road programme.
In his opening remarks, my right hon. Friend referred to urban road facilities in and around towns in our country. I hope that one of the first priorities will be the provision of adequate facilities in urban areas. This is a very great modern problem. We have an increasing number of people in urban areas owning vehicles of their own. The more quickly we deal with the priorities of motor roads the more quickly shall we have all these vehicles debouching into towns and cities and increasing the congestion. Therefore the more we deal with problem number one, of motor roads and fast moving


traffic, the more acute we make problem number two, the question of new roads in and around our towns.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell)mentioned the question of solving cross traffic in towns. Whether that may be a solution or not I do not know, but before 1965 we shall have a problem of major importance in deciding how to deal with the cars of those who live in cities and the cars of those who come into those cities. We must remember that the great centres of life in this country where people are concentrated are our towns and cities and the greatest number of vehicles are already there, apart from those which come to those centres in the course of journeys.
I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend say that he had no intention of changing the very proper rights of those who wish to raise objections when their property or land is being acquired. I wish to add a plea that the fullest possible compensation should be given to owners of property and land when, because of road programmes, they are to lose some or all of that property. I speak feelingly about this, because part of the London-Yorkshire Motorway will go through my constituency and a number of my constituents will lose part, or the whole, of their property. In some cases, they are elderly people who have put their savings into that property. I hope they will be granted all the compensation and assistance that is possible.
I wish to congratulate my right hon. Friend on what he has been able to get in the way of money for the new programme—£240 million between 1959 and 1963. He said that he is satisfied that the road programme is being given a fair share in the investment projects of the country. I should point out that the more we devote to investment in roads the better will be the value obtained from other investments. The roads of this country are, as it were, a basic raw material. We have to provide them, but they are as basic to our prosperity as are coal and iron which we find in the ground because, without those roads, just as much as without other raw materials, our prosperity would vanish.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on what he is doing. He made it quite clear in his speech today, as he has in the past, that his heart and soul is in this all-

important matter of providing roads. I hope he will not think that we have now solved this hydra-headed problem, for it will go on until 1965 and thereafter. It is a problem which goes with the economy of the country. The more prosperous we are and the more we take our place in the competitive markets of the world, the more shall we be faced with this problem. We cannot solve it overnight, nor in a measurable number of years. To my right hon. Friend and all those engaged on this problem, we look forward to every endeavour and effort to solve it.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Champion: I am, of course, bound to be in agreement with the main points made by the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole). I cannot answer his first point of whether the building of roads is inflationary or not. I am not an economist, but I am absolutely positive that we cannot improve the standard of living of this country unless we invest and develop our capital equipment. Part of the investment must clearly be in modernised forms of transport and transport facilities.
Anyone who knows anything about the economic history of the country must realise that we could never have developed as we have done in the past century if railway development had not preceded and so made possible economic development. You, Mr. Williams, know that my interest in transport is that of a railwayman. I want to see the railways modernised. I want to see all the plan that has been devised put into operation, but I do not want to see that happening to the exclusion of capital development of the roads. I am sufficiently a transport man to look at the problem as a whole and to realise that there ought to be a balanced development going on side by side.
We should modernise the railways and do everything necessary to bring them up to a decent standard, but at the same time if we neglect our roads in modern conditions we shall be heading for disaster. Everyone is bound to realise and appreciate that in the sort of conditions in which we are now living and the conditions of the future, in order to keep 50 million people on a reasonable standard of living, capital development of the roads applies equally to modernisation


of the railways. So, whether it is initially inflationary or not, the Government must go forward with a reasonably-sized road programme at the same time as they are developing railways. Let us have these two programmes running together and to the maximum possible extent that the economy will stand.
There is a place within our economy for transport of goods by rail, using the old facilities we have developed and new ones which undoubtedly will develop under the Railways Modernisation Plan, and side by side with that we should have a programme for roads which can carry goods different from those best carried by rail. It is not for me to divide the functions of the two forms of transport. It is quite clear that this country cannot exist on a decent standard of living if in modern conditions we neglect development of our highways.
In saying that, I join other hon. Members who have seen something of developments on the Continent. One is bound to find dissatisfaction with what has been done up to now. We all know of the difficulties which are consequent on the war and its immediate aftermath, but after all those countries suffered in the war much in the same way as we did and have devoted considerable resources to building up their highways.
I wish to make one or two minor points in connection with the programme. I was glad to hear the Minister express confidence in our highway engineers and their ability to do the job he is giving them and any additions he might pile on to them. There seems no doubt that the men are there and the skill is there. They want the full opportunity to develop that skill. It is undoubtedly a fact, as we have heard from the president of the highway engineers organisation, that they are getting heartily sick of preparing schemes which eventually they are not allowed to carry out. This is an important matter. It is part of their professional skill and their professional desire to express themselves. They prepare schemes but are not able to develop them into the wide ribbons of road on which we should like to see our traffic moving freely.
Full opportunity for these people to develop their skill depends on the size

of the job they are given to do, and the size of the job must have some relation to the standard of equipment which we expect them to use. If we give a highway engineer the job of providing a scheme which is a "tuppeny ha'penny" one, he will have to use a bucket and spade to carry it out. If we give him a full size job to do, he will be able to plan the necessary equipment and machinery to lay down that road economically and swiftly. These things are the very life and soul of a professional man, particularly a professional man on this level. Therefore, I say to the Minister that he should ensure that the jobs which he gives to the engineers are, in the main, big enough to justify the use of modern methods.
I turn to another comparatively small point. Is the Minister satisfied with the present state of legislation on roads and highways, under which he and all the people in his Department concerned with the future of our highways have to work? We have had a series of Acts over the past 70 years, and I am thinking that, despite the fact that there will probably be a fairly full legislative programme for the next Session, it is time that an amending and consolidating Bill was brought in. Many of the provisions under which these engineers and others have to work are clumsy and cause all manner of difficulties.
There are some cases in which the engineers and others have to work under provisions which are positively archaic. I am told, for instance, that under the existing Highways Acts a parish meeting can be the final authority to decide whether an old and unsafe bridge is to be demolished, despite the fact that a new bridge has been built to carry the traffic. This is a nonsensical situation, indicative of much of the existing legislation under which the people concerned have to work. I think that a greater simplification of the law would be beneficial to everybody concerned, and not only helpful to those which have to carry out the maintenance of the roads and indeed the Ministerial programme.
Land acquisition is a point upon which there is bound to be some discussion and disagreement. Land acquisition in this country is such that it takes anything from nine to eighteen months, and in some cases from two to three years, to acquire


a bit of land for highway purposes. I agree that we must not ride roughshod over local and private interests, but there are still a lot of quite unnecessary delays at administrative level. The fact is that land acquisition takes place at a fairly late stage in the programme itself. Surely, after it has been decided what the road programme is and where the roads are to go, a fairly early approach should be made to the interests concerned? The acquisition of the land should begin then, at a fairly early stage, not after all the rest has been decided upon.
In the main, it is true to say that it has long since been decided where our roads ought to go and the sort of pattern which they ought to have, and therefore we ought to get on to this job of land acquisition early so that the interests concerned, the highway engineers and the rest, will not be held up unduly and unnecessarily. I know that farming interests tend to oppose the taking of good, or even bad, agricultural land, in many cases, for the building of new roads. That opposition is understandable from the point of view of the interests concerned, but the value to the community in this matter ought and must be the over-riding factor. I think this is one of the cases in which one has to take decisions which occasionally have to over-rule local and private interests.
Some of us had the opportunity recently of looking at the roads of other countries and what they are doing. The most striking example of the use of land for road purposes in the interests of the economy was shown in Holland, where land has been hardly won from the sea by the efforts which the Dutch people have made—and they really are magnificent efforts which they make to win a bit of land from the sea. Yet they have found themselves able, in the interests of their economy, their people and their future, to devote a reasonable amount of that land to the purpose of building the better roads which they are now providing. They provide an illustration of something which is well worth while.
Finally, I welcome the Minister's reference to the Midlands-South Wales project. I believe that this development is vital to the South Wales ports, which have been so hardly hit by the change in the pattern of the coal trade and by losses of exports.

Developments which have taken place have struck a severe blow at these ports, which, it is true, are capable of development. Indeed, they have done much already in the direction of development so that other types of cargoes may be handled there. I believe that it would be in the interests of South Wales and of the economy generally that this project should go ahead, because it would be of benefit to the nation to have a speedy and better haul to the ports than it has at the present time. I am thinking not only of the interests of South Wales but also of the Midlands, with which I am more particularly associated.
The Minister led us along the new West Road which he is constructing up to the brink of the Severn bridge, but he did not take us over the bridge. I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary, when he replies to the debate, will be able to say whether this new road will go that little bit further and over the Severn bridge, which is so vital to our economy.

5.58 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Gough: The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion), like so many of the hon. Members who have spoken before him, began his speech on the question of whether or not a road programme is inflationary. I make no apology for starting my speech on the same lines, but I would put it a different way.
I would say that the statement made by my right hon. Friend that we as a nation have disregarded our roads for twenty years is true, and that that fact has itself been a very definite factor in the inflationary situation of the past few years. It is because our roads have become more and more congested and less and less modern year by year that some of the most precious fuel has been allowed to evaporate into thin air. I am not in the least surprised by the figure quoted by Dr. Glanville, of the Road Research Laboratory, who provided some staggering figures to show that between £500 and £1,000 million a year were being wasted by this nation because of the lack of a good road system.
The system announced by my right hon. Friend this afternoon will do something, but not nearly enough, to eliminate this waste, and therefore I think we


would all look upon it as being disinflationary, for four very good reasons. First, as I have already said, it eliminates waste; secondly, good roads preserve the life of vehicles, and that is an important point as well; thirdly, and this is very important and a matter in which I have a personal interest, it prevents accidents, and increasing accidents means that insurance premiums are increased, while when there are fewer accidents those premiums are decreased, and that factor, also, has its effect.
The fourth point and, of course, the most important of all is that a good road system speeds up deliveries between the factories and the ports. Several hon. Members have pointed out that we have a brake on our export efforts in that we have such inadequate roads leading from our industrial centres to the ports.
My right hon. Friend dealt mostly with his long-term policy, and I want to say a word or two about that, but I feel that, in the meantime, there are one or two comments which should be made about the short-term policy. It seems to me that wherever there is a traffic jam a roundabout is built. The latest roundabout, on which I have tabled a Question for next Wednesday—perhaps my hon. Friend might save trouble by answering it this evening—is at the south of Lambeth Bridge. Many hon. Members use that bridge and they will remember that in the old days, when we had traffic lights there, the situation was not too bad. Now we have a mammoth rock garden.
If anybody's vehicle gets out of control he is almost bound to end up at St. Thomas's Hospital, which, fortunately, is quite near. Every day there is a jam of traffic the length of Lambeth Bridge. Do not let us get into the horse and buggy age. Let us look forward. I was very interested in the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell)about underpasses, because I think that there is no better place for an underpass than the southern end of Lambeth Bridge.
May I now turn to the more constructive steps which the Minister has announced from time to time and ask a few questions, because some of these projects do not seem to be going ahead as quickly as I know he had hoped?

Some time ago my right hon. Friend pointed out to the House and the country the fact that a large proportion of our roads and streets today are rendered nugatory because they are occupied by stationary vehicles. In other words, we have a very bad and growing parking problem. I have a personal interest in this, as many hon. Members know, because I am interested in multi-storey parking, a subject which has been mentioned today by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Boyd).
What steps are being taken by local authorities to go ahead with modern mechanical multi-storey garages? I cannot believe that the parking meter will be anything other than an extremely disagreeable and extremely unpopular temporary measure, and until we provide suitable facilities in order that stationary cars may be taken off the streets of our modern cities we shall not get very far in keeping the traffic moving as it grows year by year.
I suggest to my right hon. Friend that there are other cheap expedients which might be adopted during the interim while his major programme is being developed. The first could be adopted to deal with bottlenecks in smaller towns. We have heard a good deal about the large developments which are taking place, and rightly taking place, from the major manufacturing centres to the ports, but there are smaller towns where congestion occurs. I have two in my constituency, Horsham and Midhurst.
If any hon. Member wants a pleasant week-end on the South Coast, he may well travel through those two towns. I can assure him that without exception he will be caught in a major traffic jam. I believe that in both cases, and probably in hundreds of similar small towns, a week-end by-pass arrangement could be used, making use of the back streets, and could become perfectly normal. That is the sort of thing which could be done without any large financial outlay.
On many of our roads we run into trouble on the hills, where traffic is held up. We are told that 80 per cent, of our roads are only two-way roads, but generally they are quite adequate until one reaches a hill. Then, in the distance, one often sees an enormous 12-ton lorry belching out black smoke, and behind it an ever-growing queue of traffic. Slowly


the queue crawls up the hill. I suggest that it might be simple to widen the road on the hill, with a temporary surface, so that the lorry may move on one side to enable the other traffic to pass.
Rivers are another cause of bottlenecks. There are several in the country, and one of the very worst is Staines, where the bridge lies on an extremely important road. My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke)referred to this road to Southampton. Of all the awful experiences one has on that road, Staines is probably the worst, suggest that a Bailey bridge could be thrown across the Thames somewhere in Staines. There could be one road for the up traffic and one for the down traffic. I believe that Bailey bridges could be used as a temporary measure in many towns through which rivers pass and that they could help materially in reducing traffic congestion and delay.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: I believe that there was a Bailey bridge—and it may even be there today—on the bank of the River Thames at Staines. It was put there in case the road bridge was knocked down during the war.

Mr. Gough: That is perfectly true. I have seen the bridge. It looks a little rusty, and I wondered whether we might have gone to the expense of having a new one. That bridge could be used, but it is not used.
Not long ago I was travelling along the road to Southampton to visit Southampton University and I noticed that an enormous amount of the traffic was Army and R.A.F. traffic. There was a line of tank transporters, for instance. Recently, we had a debate on rail transport, in which many hon. Members were thinking out means of increasing rail traffic. I think that if my right hon. Friend spoke to the Secretary of State for War and the Secretary of State for Air on the subject it might be possible to arrange for a great deal of that traffic to be moved by rail.
The important subject, however, is that to which my right hon. Friend referred today, the major developments and the major plans. I have written down some priorities, and I am delighted that he gave the same priorities. Personally, I believe that the first priority must be first-class roads from our manufacturing centres to

the docks and ports, and I was glad to hear about the road from the Midlands to South Wales. I, too, shall be interested to hear whether that road is to cross the River Severn.
The next major priority is that when we build and improve these roads we must deal with the exits from and the entries to large cities. If we overlook that, we shall merely get traffic going faster and faster and then crowding up even worse than before at the entrances to the cities. I wonder whether any thought has been given to the building of overhead roads. I did not have the opportunity of going to Brussels to inspect the roads there, but the other day I saw a picture which showed that they are building an overhead road in Brussels.
If my hon. Friend has any information, would he tell me what steps have been taken in conjunction with the British Transport Commission in developments over the main railway lines and main railway stations in the big cities? For several years there has been a good deal of talk about development over Victoria Station—I have an interest in the matter—of running a road over the lines and across the River Thames. I think that there is an opportunity at many of our main-line railway stations such as Kings Cross and St. Pancras to build overhead roads which could take traffic straight out of London and eventually let it join the motorways to which reference has been made.
I think that the third major priority is this—and this is not said in any spirit of carping criticism. When we decide to build a road we should get on with it and build it quickly. Every time I go to London Airport and look at the Cromwell Road extension I see two men there having a cup of tea and the rest are—I do not know where. This is not said in criticism of the people themselves, but it seems to me to be clear common sense that when we decide to build a road we should put on to work as many people as possible and get it finished as quickly as possible.

Mr. Holt: Might I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to page 34 of the Estimates, in which he may find the answer to his problem with regard to the construction of the Cromwell Road extension. It is not planned that it shall be finished until 1959–60. It is probably a


question of the length of time that the Ministry have allowed for it to be done.

Mr. Gough: I fully agree, but I still believe that the Ministry may be wrong there and that it should have another look at the question. I am sure that it is good economy, when one starts doing something, to get on and finish it. However, I am grateful to the hon. Member for referring me to the Estimates, and I shall look at that page later.
Fourthly, let us look to the future. As we are building for the future, let us do so in such a way that in fifteen or twenty years' time we shall have people coming here and saying, "What wonderful roads the British have," instead of going, as we do at present, to various European countries and wishing that we could do half as well as they.
I make no apology for ending as I began. I am convinced that we should not only be planning what my right hon. Friend has outlined, but doing a great deal more. I do not think that it is inflationary. In fact, I think that it would make one of the biggest possible contributions to our economy.

6.12 p.m.

Mr. Albert Roberts: I believe that opinion is completely unanimous that we are not making the progress we should be making with our road construction. I had the opportunity, with one or two of my colleagues, to visit the Continent, and was amazed at the force and the drive being put into the construction of first-class roads, into the reconstruction of roads, and into the easing of the flow of traffic. It made me wonder that a little country like Belgium which, like us, has full employment, should be able to find the skill and the labour necessary to bring about these great works.
I realise that from 1945 until 1951 there was a dispersal of labour from some of the great cities into County Durham and some of the old distressed areas, seeking to absorb the reservoir of male and female labour there; but if we put industry into those localities, it is incumbent on us to provide efficient means of communication. If we are to be competitive, we must have those communications, but at present industry is very badly served in that respect.
I believe that our waterways can still play a very important part. There are certain kinds of merchandise that can be carried on them, and I appreciate what the Minister has done in asking for development to be put in hand on some of our canals. I realise also the need there is for developing our railways. We all realise that the increasing traffic on our roads is causing a certain amount of strangulation to industry. I therefore hope that, whilst we are no doubt unanimous about the need for the reconstruction of our roads, we shall get the right kind of spirit behind the effort.
I want to say a word for the West Riding, and for Yorkshire in general. I was very pleased to read that the Parliamentary Secretary had visited Yorkshire, looking at the A.1 road—which is A.1 in name only—but I want to say something about a county with a population equal to that of Wales; a highly-industrialised county with its coal, its steel, its wool, and with its agriculture, too. Yorkshire is one of the most neglected counties in the country. I say this because, although the Great North Road winds its way through the county, the motorway leading from the south is to stop south of Sheffield. It should be possible for the Minister to say when that motorway is to be continued through Yorkshire, to make its link with the Great North Road somewhere near the Durham boundary.
At present, the merchandise pouring from towns like Sheffield, Leeds, Bradford and Huddersfield has to wend its way along country roads before it reaches the Great North Road. I was shocked when it was announced that we were to be left out in the cold in the construction of this motorway. The ingenuity and drive of the West Riding deserves more consideration than it is receiving, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will at least give us a little bit of hope that something will be done in the not too far distant future.
A tremendous amount of coal is now being carried on the West Riding roads from the south to Bradford—to the mill areas. Tons and tons of coal are taken every day, and the roads that have to deal with this traffic are totally inadequate. Surely, so highly industrialised a part of the country should have real consideration in this respect. I am not


parochial when I deal with these matters, but I am incensed to think that a region playing such a major part in the economic life of the country should be so neglected, and I hope that in the next few years we shall see motorways constructed throughout the West Riding. I would warn the Parliamentary Secretary that the boroughs and county boroughs in the area concerned will get together in the near future to bring pressure to bear on the right Departments.
Here I should like to digress for a moment. I believe in something that is being done on the Continent. We ought to appoint a specialised committee to deal with this subject, a committee to which money could be voted, which could be asked what its programme was, and given the power to carry out the work, because, while at present the programme may be all right, we must remember that programmes change with Governments. That is one of the weaknesses that has revealed itself so prominently in some of our major projects.
If only we can agree that these jobs have to be done, that first things must be put first, then, in a few years, we may be able to say that we have roads equal to those on the Continent. Second place is not enough. Apart altogether from any political expediency, let us see if we can construct the roads about which we all talk and which are necessary to meet the will, the desire and the needs of industry.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. J. Langford-Holt: Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will be glad to have heard the statement by my right hon. Friend this afternoon. We had been conditioned to believe that something in the nature of a restriction or a cut was likely to be forced upon the roads programme. I will not enter into the argument as to whether this is deflationary or not.
Like other hon. Members, I have had the advantage of travelling on the Continent for the specific purpose of studying the roads programmes in various countries and the ways which have been adopted in those countries to tackle their problems. I get very bored having to quote examples from foreign countries, hut, of course, our difficulty here is that people on the Continent are the only people within reach who have tried the ex

periments to which we are referring. The attitude which they adopted on the Continent fairly soon after the war was that they could not afford to leave the roads as they were. Today, they know that they were right in taking that view.
In this country, as we have heard, we are having approximately a 10 per cent. increase in traffic annually. The roads programme which has been carried out since the war, even when it is going at peak, will be only a little more than what it was before the war in terms of actual work done.
One often hears people say that on the large motorways on the Continent the accident rate is much higher. The Germans have many years of experience of this problem, and the fact is that on an autobahn the accident rate is 30 to 40 per cent. lower than on lesser roads carrying the same volume of traffic. Incidentally, I notice that we in this country are still building three-lane roads. On the Continent of Europe three-lane roads are regarded as thoroughly dangerous and a sheer menace.
On my visits to Holland, Belgium, France and Germany one thing which struck me was that within 24 hours of arriving in one of those countries I met a person who said, "I am the director of roads". We never find such a person in this country. My right hon. Friend will say that he is the director of roads. He is also the director of aeroplanes and of ships and one or two other things. It is extremely difficult in this country to find one person in one office who will say, "I am responsible for the roads and if they are a failure that is my fault."
I know that we have difficulties with our democratic system and the question of responsibility to Parliament, but it is indicative of an attitude of mind. It is one of the attitudes of mind which have borne fruit in the form of such astonishing situations as one finds in connection with the fly-over at the far end of Cromwell Road, at Hammersmith.
One hon. Member mentioned the question of the parking of vehicles. My right hon. Friend is introducing new regulations relating to the parking of vehicles in the Metropolitan area. The present regulations are not being observed. Either because they will not or they cannot, the Metropolitan Police are not enforcing the regulations which are already in existence.


If they were able or willing to enforce the regulations, the traffic problem would be much less.
We have roads which date back many years and which have improved very little in the course of those years. But with the limited resources at our disposal we sometimes do extraordinary things. A friend of mine one weekend—I think it was the Whitsun weekend—went to the South Coast in a car. He may have been ill-advised, but it did not help much when he found that on that main road to the South Coast for many miles all the traffic was held up and made to form into a single line to allow a procession of penny-farthing bicycles to pass as they were engaged on a little rally. I do not wish to restrict any rally of penny-farthing or any other bicycles, but it struck me as a strange time to have such a rally on a main road.
We have heard many comments by hon. Members on the loss and damage to our economy caused by the inadequacy of our roads. The director of the Road Research Laboratory, who has been present today in everything except his personal form, has estimated the amount to be £500 million per annum. I think that in all the underestimates that we have made we have tended to underestimate what I may call the repayment value of increased money spent on the roads.
My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke)used the example of the road between Amsterdam and Utrecht, only 23 miles. He pointed out that the saving in time by ordinary motor cars was 20 minutes in that short distance. This is not speculation; it is fact. It has happened and it has been tested. The saving in motor fuel was just as impressive. My hon. Friend gave the figures in litres. A lorry saved 22 minutes and one-third of a gallon in those 23 miles. My hon. Friend said that a fair count on a large road would be 4,000 vehicles per hour. If those are large vehicles, that means a saving of 1,300 gallons of fuel over one stretch of road. Imagination boggles at the possibility of what might be saved on all the roads throughout the country.
We must consider the question of the standardisation of our roads. Hon. Members have mentioned that down the centre

of a dual carriageway is an island of a certain width. Sometimes we find a hedge, or a small wall, or some other kind of obstruction in the centre of a dual carriageway. All those vary in width and type. The standardisation of these widths, curves and islands is necessary in the interests of safety.
My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, who is to reply to the debate, knows that for a long time I have been interested in the standardisation of road signs. Only a few months ago he produced a new set of regulations governing road signs in this country. These regulations and the road signs to which they refer hark back to the middle of the 1920s. Further authority has been given to road signs which were introduced in the 1920s.
In the last eight years there have been two international conferences both of which have been attended by representatives from this country, and, broadly speaking, whatever the differences may be, they have established one sign to indicate one thing. But that does not bother the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation. We have two possible signs for tramway crossings and there are five different signs to indicate road works. There are no less than three signs to indicate public conveniences.
This is not all. The general principle behind both these international conferences is that one should do away with words in road signs wherever possible and use pictures wherever pictures will do, the point being, of course, that one can look more quickly at a picture and—to use a naval expression—hoist it in more readily than one can read a lot of words. What do these signs have as provided for in the regulations? In many cases, there is a large number of words. One sign has no fewer than 38 words to it, and it is a sign usually to be found on a dual-carriageway, to be read, perhaps, at high speed at night.
Another sign has 26 words—no fewer than 137 letters. Perhaps hon. Members may care to work out how difficult it is and how diverting to the intention, which should be on the road, to try to read a sign such as that. As I mentioned the other day, I carried out an experiment to test the difference involved in looking at a pictorial sign as compared with a word sign such as is provided for by the


Ministry of Transport. I found that the word sign took twice as long to take in; in other words, it took twice as long for the reaction of the average individual to occur and take effect.
The explanation of the delay in making any change has always been that it would be too expensive. But it is perfectly simple to provide that all signs of the present design will be adequate for the next five years or so, and that thereafter signs shall conform to the international standards, which are readily understood and to which a great deal of thought has been devoted. After all, these international signs are the result of work at two conferences to which this country sent representatives.
Our roads programme is very slow by European standards. One cannot help comparing the rate of progress on the Markyate extension with the rate of progress in road building which is going on right in the centre of Brussels at this moment, which is to have the roads ready for the International Fair to open there next year.
Two factors make for slowness, one, the acquisition of land, and the other, the rate of construction. As regards the acquisition of land, the basic difference between out method and the Continental method, which leads to our difficulties, is that, fundamentally, we try to do it on the cheap, whereas, on the Continent, there is a tendency to offer the market value. The result of the Continental method is that there is not the large number of objections to acquisition. For every single objection Continental countries have as a result of what they are doing, we, because we try to do it on the cheap, get twenty objections in this country.
We have all heard about the Markyate by-pass, where it has taken one and a half years to build one and a quarter miles. The Germans build their roads at the rate of 200 yards a day. They could build the Markyate by-pass, at that rate, in about a fortnight. The rate of building on the Markyate by-pass has been six yards of construction a day.
One suggestion I have, which I ask my hon. Friend to examine, is that we should stop our tendency to take small bites at these things. The present method is to do the thing on a contract

basis. I ask my hon. Friend to investigate, in conjunction with the large contracting firms, the possibility of finding a series of teams or units which could be given not necessarily large contracts but continuity of work, not for one or two years, but for ten years into the future, so that they would be able to plan ahead and purchase the machinery to do the job more quickly and more cheaply than it is done today.
The example of using a bucket and spade has been used. If a person is given a small job to do, he is bound to go about it with a bucket and spade. If he is given a long job, not necessarily a big job, he will get the best equipment and do it more quickly and more cheaply.

6.34 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Davies: This has been a constructive debate, and a good-tempered one. It has shown that there is a considerable measure of uneasiness among hon. Members in regard to the present road programme, and, of course, the purpose of the debate was to enable that to be expressed in constructive form. Considerable dissatisfaction with the size of the programme, its general conception, and the speed with which it is being carried out has been expressed on both sides, and there has been a demand for a definite and inviolable long-term road programme.
The Minister gave us some figures, to which I shall return a little later. Quite clearly, I think there has been an underestimation of the growth of traffic in this country, and this has been responsible for the inadequacy of the road programme so far. The case which hon. Members have been endeavouring to make is that we must spend more on the roads today because of the increasing growth of traffic and because of this twenty-year backlog to which the Minister referred. Credit must be given for what is being done. One cannot go about the country today without seeing a certain amount of road construction taking place. Much of it is on a small scale, minor improvements and so forth, but there is a considerable amount of work being done. Even so, it is proving quite inadequate.
I find it difficult to understand, and this is something mentioned by many hon.


Members, why other industrial countries comparable with ours can afford to spend far more on their road programmes than we can. Why is it that they consider it more necessary to do so than we do? The Minister gave no explanation of that this afternoon. He referred to the E.C.E. figures and deprecated them, pointing out, quite rightly, that they were out of date because there had, since then, been some stepping up of our roads programme. But even if allowance is made for the amount which has been spent since these figures were prepared, the conclusion would still be that our figures stand very poor comparison to those of other countries.
In reply to a supplementary question on 29th May, when these figures were quoted, the Minister stated that they were out of date, and that we were spending three times as much now. As our figure then was only 0·09 per cent., which, multiplied by three, is still only 0·27 per cent., compared with 0·75 per cent. in Germany and Belgium and 1 per cent. in Holland, it is clear that we are still far and away below these other countries even after account is taken of the increased programme in this country. Moreover, if the figures are looked at in connection with expenditure on major roads, motorways and the like, we are seen to come very low down in the list.
The explanation lies in the different approach to the problem of road transport which is to be found in this country as compared with that of Continental countries. On the Continent, there seems to be a better appreciation of the implications of the rapid growth of road transport as a modern means of transportation. Governments there seem to appreciate better than we do that road traffic is growing rapidly, that it will continue to grow, and that we are mistaken if we do not face the need to cater for its growth. It is accepted that an adequate roads programme to meet the need is essential to a country's economy.
A very large proportion of all motor vehicle transport is for business purposes of one sort or another. Pleasure motoring, except at weekends, accounts for only a small percentage of the total, largely because there is no longer much pleasure in motoring on our roads. On the Continent, it seems to be appreciated that,

since the need is there, it is the responsibility of the Government to meet it, and that the motorist, be he public or private, must be helped to get where he wants to go, speedily and safely, that he must be able to travel freely, to arrive, and then to park his vehicle without too much inconvenience.
The attitude taken by respective British Governments reflects more the Canute-like mentality. The Minister seems to see waves of vehicles flowing on to the roads and would like to held them back if he could, because the problem of dealing with them is too great and too costly. He rather regards it as an unpleasant disease that is horrible to face. Certainly, it will develop into the disease of creeping paralysis if speedier and more adequate action is not taken.
It is important, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss)pointed out, that the needs of road transport in the provision of adequate roads should be met so as to afford relief from the point of view of transport costs which reflect upon our economy. Transport is an extremely important factor in industrial costs. If our costs are higher, we shall lag further behind in our competitive power and this is of particular importance today with the coming of the Common Market and the Free Trade Area.
The contrast between the manner in which the Continent and this country are tackling the roads problem cannot but give rise to concern. No one can see the work being done there without being impressed and worried by the different approach in this country, as several hon. Members have suggested during this afternoon's debate. Investment on the Continent is on a proportionately higher scale and is regarded as essential to the economy as investment in coal, electricity, atomic energy and the like—but not road transport—is regarded here.
If this country continues to fall behind with the coming of the European Common Market and the Free Trade Area, there is being created for our industry an additional competitive handicap of higher transport costs due to an inadequate, inefficient and uneconomic road system. We can no longer afford to fail to provide for the needs of


modern road transport, of which successive Governments have been guilty since the war.
Is the new programme which the Minister announced this afternoon for the four years following the ending of the present programme adequate to meet the need? I understood the Minister to say that over the period 1958–59 to 1962–63, he will authorise works which ultimately will cost £240 million. That is an overlap, of course, because the other programme was from 1954–55 to 1957–58. There is a year's overlap, so it is difficult to compare the figures given in the first programme with those given for the new programme.
I question, however, whether this is such an increase as the Minister suggested. I understood that the figure for the four years 1954 to 1958 was £212 million in authorisations. With the local authorities, that came up to £250 million, which was the figure quoted by my right hon. Friend this afternoon. The Minister then got up and said that it was only £150 million. It is true that the Minister gave figures of authorisations amounting to only £146 million for this four-year period. So on his authorisations during the first four-year programme which he announced today, there is an increase of £100 million. As far as I can make out, however, there is no real increase over the programme announced by his predecessor who is now Minister of Pensions and National Insurance on 2nd February, 1955, when the Government's proposals for the expanded road programme were put before the House.
The former Minister of Transport gave figures and said:
The effect of the proposals now put forward is that the work authorised in the financial year 1955–56 will represent an ultimate expenditure from the Exchequer of approximately £27 million and the total to be authorised during the following three years will involve an ultimate Government expenditure of about £120 million.
That is, £147 million, which approximates to the amount which the Minister this afternoon said had been authorised. It should, however, be noted that the previous Minister added:
This excludes expenditure on the very large projects of national importance to which I have just referred.
These "projects of national importance" to which the Minister had already referred

were projects which we had described in these words:
Over and above schemes in particular localities, there are certain major projects of national importance which should be ready for commitments towards the end of this period. They will be projects of great magnitude and the cost will be formidable…
The Minister then outlined certain of these projects. They included the London—Yorkshire motorway. Following on that he said,
the Government would wish to put in hand, not only the remainder of that motor road, but also the North-South motor road through Lancashire from Preston to Birmingham."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 2nd February. 1955 Vol. 536, c. 1098–1100.]
In reply to questions, the Minister reaffirmed that the figure of £147 million did not include these other major projects. These other major projects are now being included in the programme announced this afternoon. There is, therefore, the overlap of these projects.
It was quite clear at the time that the amount of authorisations under the programme was bound to increase as time went on. It was deduced from that announcement of the Minister's predecessor and subsequent Questions in the House and statements made by Ministers that the total authorisation under the first four-year programme would be £250 million and not the £150 million to which the Minister referred this afternoon.
I contend, therefore, that in effect there is no increase in the four-year programme as a result of the figures which the Minister has announced this afternoon. The first four-year programme represented an expenditure of £250 million and the new four-year programme which the Minister has announced also represents an expenditure of £250 million. Far from increasing the expenditure, therefore, the Government are merely maintaining it. For that we are grateful, in view of some reports which have appeared in the Press, but it is not nearly adequate enough.
In connection with his announcement this afternoon, the Minister spoke of authorisations only, which is understandable, perhaps, but he did not give any indication of the period over which construction would take place or the rate of expenditure year by year. What the Committee would like to know is not only that there are to be authorisations of £250 million, but that the speed of construction and the actual number of


schemes in the pipeline will be so stepped up that the actual expenditure year by year will steadily increase. It goes up to £50 million for the year 1958–59 when it reaches its maximum of £50 million per annum on the old programme. Unless the new programme means that there will be higher expenditure year by year above the £50 million which is the picture for 1958–59——

Mr. Watkinson: Excluding Scotland.

Mr. Davies: Scotland constitutes a complication in view of the fact that the responsibility has been transferred, but the expenditure on the old programme in Scotland was not very great.
Hon. Members, therefore, have to decide whether this programme upon which we have embarked will be adequate to meet the needs. To a greater or less degree, every speaker in the debate has expressed doubt whether it is sufficient. All the indications and all the reports made by authorities, both official and unofficial, suggest that unless the programme is substantially more over the four year period than £250 million we shall not be able to keep up with the growth in traffic. In other words, we shall not be able to maintain the present flow of traffic and that flow will be slowed down, congestion will increase and the toll of accidents will rise. It has been suggested in many quarters that unless the 1958–59 to 1961–62 programme provides for an expenditure of £500 million we shall not be able to meet the needs of the growth in transport.
It is equally important that we get full value for the expenditure incurred. Several hon. Members have mentioned different schemes and different deficiencies in the expenditure that is now taking place. In view of the fact that there is so much criticism of individual schemes, it is reasonable to question whether we are making sufficient use in this country of the technicians, that is of traffic engineers. There are fully qualified traffic engineers in the country. Some of them are very able and a number of them are employed by the county authorities, but unfortunately they are not always in a position to influence decisions sufficiently. They are not always in positions of responsibility. They are not adequately consulted, nor is their advice given sufficient

weight. The situation is quite different on the Continent. In Belgium Mr. Hondermarcq, who is a prominent official responsible for the roads, is himself a traffic engineer.
Wherever a major scheme for London or for the provinces is under consideration, the plans, before they are officially approved, should be considered by a panel or an advisory committee of traffic engineers so that we can be certain that the best scheme, which will ensure the freest flow of traffic, is expedited and the advice of the engineers is taken. One hears that in connection with major London schemes this advice is not always taken. The Road Research Laboratory is available and from time to time gives advice, but its reports are not published and the public are not able to see whether its advice is fully adopted.
The debate has proved most useful, but the criticisms that have emerged are important. I hope that they will impress upon the Minister the continuing dissatisfaction with the size of the programme and the concern which is present in hon. Members minds. My right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall gave estimates of the losses accruing from failure to bring our roads up to date. He painted a rather frightening picture, but I am afraid that it is unlikely to prove an exaggeration or a fantasy. There is no question that, in view of the predictable increase in the number of vehicles on the roads, conditions are certain to deteriorate to a terrifying degree unless the road programme is expanded far more than the extent announced by the Minister today.
Average speeds are bound to fall, congestion to increase, delays to mount, and the toll of road accidents to rise even from its present alarming level. The certain result is higher transport costs, due to greater waste of manpower, fuel and materials, and damage will be done to our economy with the resultant weakening of our competitive power, particularly in Europe.
The fact that the money that must be voted by the House of Commons annually pays no visible dividend makes it easy to reduce or limit the road programme, but to do so is obviously false economy. Any Minister worth his salt would be in ceaseless battle with the Chancellor of the Exchequer for money


for the roads. The present Minister apparently has given up the fight and has obtained only the same amount as he received in the last four years.

6.57 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): This has been to a large extent a harmonious debate, because everybody seems able to agree that we want more money for the roads. It is also agreed that it is a great pity that more has not been spent on them in the last twenty years. Everyone, on this side of the Committee at least, will agree that it was very welcome to hear my right hon. Friend today announcing that there will be a considerable increase over the next four years. Before these rather distracting figures pass out of my mind, I will try to explain what my hon. Friend said and the significance of his announcement. It is broadly, as the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies)thought—that it will constitute an increased expenditure over the next four years of roughly £100 million.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Actual expenditure?

Mr. Nugent: Yes.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Over the last four years?

Mr. Nugent: Over the present rate of expenditure. I was asked whether the annual rate of expenditure would increase over that estimated for 1958–59 of £50 million, including Scotland. The answer is "Yes," and my right hon. Friend's figures were for England and Wales only, because the estimates are separate now. It would be impossible to give the Committee precise figures on this because, as hon. Members know, it is difficult to say precisely how much will fall within each year. The broad fact is that over the coming four years the rate of expenditure will be raised by £100 million.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Total?

Mr. Nugent: Yes, total.

Mr. Strauss: This is very important. We do not want to be mistaken. The present rate of expenditure is about £30 million a year this year. Next year it

may be up to £50 million. Does that mean that over the next four years the average expenditure will be £75 million? Is it £25 million over £50 million or over the present expenditure

Mr. Nugent: It will average over the four years about £60 million a year, so that over four years, other things being equal, it will amount to about £240 million. That is a considerable increase over what we are doing now.

Mr. Strauss: Hopelessly inadequate.

Mr. Nugent: It is more than ten times what the right hon. Gentleman achieved. In the main, we have avoided making party points in this debate. We all recognise that this is a national problem. I would not aim any strong criticism at the right hon. Gentleman for that fact, because the whole problem here is that within the ambit of transport we want to spend more money on roads, but what the Government of the day have to do is to decide what priority they can give to the roads.
Naturally, right hon. Gentlemen opposite, when they formed the Government, had many pressing claims on the resources of the nation and had to decide what the priorities were. The outcome was that they could allow only some £4 million a year during the last five years of the Labour Government. Today, fortunately, through the growth of the national product and the greater strength of the national economy, we can manage not only the capital expenditures and demands on our resources which right hon. Gentlemen opposite undertook, but our present programme as well, and I think that is some credit to the success of the Conservative Government.
Passing now to some of the many interesting points raised during the debate, I would tell the hon. Member for Enfield, East that we have traffic engineers in our Department and we consult them and listen very closely to them when considering schemes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Langford-Holt)made some interesting points. He asked, as did several other hon. Members, about the progress of the Cromwell Road extension. That is something that many of us see frequently, and, therefore, are able to make fairly careful comments about it. The work on the extension is


up to schedule and is being carried out in four or five contracts. I looked at it closely the other day.
Major road works in the middle of London are very difficult to undertake. One has only to touch a road to find it honeycombed with electricity, gas, telephone, water and other services. It is a most complex and difficult task to keep traffic moving, deal with all those services and carry out major works at the same time. In addition, a good deal of property has to be pulled down in connection with the extension. The whole of Talgarth Road has to be pulled down and the people rehoused. A school has to be pulled down and another school built.
These are inevitably lengthy works, and they have to be phased. It is no good putting on the spot a tremendously strong building gang when there are many other operations which have to be phased in. The work is planned to finish in about two and a half years' time, and I have every expectation that it will be completed by then.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury also referred to the need for large-scale works to attract big contractors, and my hon. Friends the Members for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke)and Horsham (Mr. Gough)and the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion)also referred to it. We fully appreciate that need, but many of the schemes such as the Markyate bypass, which have attracted general criticism because of the slowness with which they were carried out, were schemes which were not big enough to attract large-scale contractors.
When we begin the Birmingham motorway—we hope it will be begun before the end of the year—we intend to let it in big chunks. It is a road of between 50 and 60 miles long from the end of the St. Albans by-pass. We shall let it in big lengths each involving about £4 million or £5 million, so that they will be large enough to attract big contractors. If a contractor can succeed in the tendering, there is no reason why he should not take on more than one length. At all events, each contract will be large enough to attract the really big men, and it will be worth their while bringing to the spot big machinery.
I think hon. Members will be very impressed when they see the full resources of our big contractors at work. I am convinced, and so is my right hon. Friend, that we have contractors who can build roads as fast as anybody in the world. Their only difficulty has been that up to date they have not had schemes big enough to enable them to deploy their full resources. I hope we shall see the work to which I have referred going forward before the end of the year—I speak of the financial year—and going forward very rapidly next year. We are doing there what right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite want us to do.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury feels strongly about the subject of traffic signs. The cost of changing to the Continental system would have been very high. It was reckoned to be more than £4 million. A point to be considered is that the Americans use a different system, so, even if we changed, we should not have achieved the universal system which everybody would like.
My hon. Friend mentioned that the accident rate on the autobahnen was a good deal lower than that here. I have no separate figures for the accident rate on the autobahnen, but the German accident rate figures are a great deal higher than ours and the Germans are extremely worried about it. We have plenty to be concerned about with our accident figures, but I am glad to say that we have kept a far better check on accidents than the Germans have.
The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. A. Roberts)spoke of the needs of the West Riding. The Yorkshire motorway is not in the immediate programme as my right hon. Friend has decided that we should concentrate on dualling the Great North Road first, and completing the motorway to Birmingham and on to Preston, and so on as first priority. Only after we have completed the five major routes shall we then go ahead with the whole of the Yorkshire motorway as originally projected. It is not forgotten, and it will come back into the programme, but I am afraid that it cannot have the same priority as our five major projects.
My hon. Friend the Member for Horsham referred to the needs of towns like Horsham and Midhurst. It is true that these towns and a great many others


on the South Coast, the East Coast and the West Coast have problems in connection with weekend traffic. We all know what desperate frustration is suffered by motorists who have gone out for the Sunday or the weekend and want to return on Sunday evening. We are doing our best where we can with road improvements, and my right hon. Friend has appointed Mr. Samuels, Chairman of the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee, to make a special study to ascertain where it is possible to divert traffic along side roads and so on to ease the problem.
I am afraid that those towns will have to wait their turn. Everyone mentioned dozens of places where we should like road improvements, but we feel that we must make a programme and stick to it, and, as my right hon. Friend has said, our programme is the five major projects to give the country a basic road structure which will carry a very large part of our heavy traffic as well as a great deal of private traffic. We must concentrate as much as we can on those projects and try to get them completed. I do not doubt that that will be to the great benefit of our economy. At the same time, we will do what we can with the funds left to cope with the many other road problems all round the country.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East asked about the Severn bridge. I think he has already heard what my right hon. Friend has said about it. The whole scheme is to cost £36 million so it is very costly. We cannot see our way to fit it into our programme at present, but my right hon. Friend has been considering a lesser scheme, costing about £15 million, which would not include the motorway connections with Birmingham but would include the bridge. It may be possible at some time in the nearer future to fit that into our road programme. It is under consideration now, but I am afraid it is still impossible to give a date for the scheme.
Several hon. Members have spoken about the problem of land acquisition, and I think I ought to take a minute or two to say a word about it. The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell)thought we were spending too much time on it. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East thought we could get on with

the land acquisition earlier even if we could not get on with the rest of the work. Hon. Friends of mine felt that the process was probably about right.
I will tell the Committee why we cannot get on with the land acquisition part of the process. We have first to settle the line of the road. That begins with consultations with all affected interests—agricultural interests, local authorities, nationalised industries including the railways, statutory authorities, church, cemetery and national park authorities public interests of that kind—and that takes a very long time.
It often takes six or twelve months before those preliminary discussions can be completed. Then my right hon. Friend makes a draft order fixing the line, which is published. At that stage those affected have a chance to object, and if there are objections and the volume is considerable we have a public inquiry. It is quite possible, if that inquiry reveals a really serious weight of objection, that my right hon. Friend may decide that that line cannot be pursued and must be changed.
The Committee can quite well see that it would not do if we proceeded to acquire the land before that stage. Therefore, we have to wait until after all that is done before we can consider acquiring the land. In fact, acquisition of the land can go ahead at the next stage, at the same time as the initial engineering drawings are being got out, although we still have the problem of a whole new set of orders for the closing of side roads. It is really a very long and complicated business. If any landowner resists the purchase we have to go for a compulsory purchase order and, once again, there may be a local inquiry and objections may have to be considered. I say to the Committee, having looked at it very carefully, that my right hon. Friend and I feel that, long though it is, we have achieved a balance between all the private and public interests concerned and our need for roads.

Mr. Russell: Will my hon. Friend answer the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. J. Langford-Holt)about the price paid for the land and the effect that that might have on the number of objectors?

Mr. Nugent: I am afraid that I cannot deal with that at present. It is paid for on the usual basis of existing use and the negotiations are carried out by the district valuer on the settled basis. I think that is the best we can do about it. We have put in the Library a copy of this long and difficult process which will acquaint hon. Members with exactly all the different stages, and I think that right hon. and hon. Members will be satisfied that we cannot really shorten it. We are now going ahead wherever we can with this process in preparation for schemes for the future so that we have enough to feed into the pipeline and keep our programme going at fair speed.
I was asked by two hon. Members whether local authorities were free to set up parking meter schemes and multistorey garages. The answer is "Yes, they are." They are perfectly free to make proposals, just according to their local needs. I was also asked a number of points by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Boyd). He asked: are we working to a plan with our roads? He seemed to think that they were rather in bits and pieces. The answer is that, on existing roads, we have inevitably to work by bits and pieces. With a new road we can do the whole thing right away; but with an existing road, as we can acquire bits of land, we can make our widening or second carriage-way and do the roadworks as we get the opportunity. At the same time, we have to keep the traffic going and, therefore, inevitably it seems to be done in bits and pieces.
This particularly applies to the Great North Road, which the Member for Normanton mentioned. I have just had a look at it. We intend to make it a dual carriageway eventually the whole way along. We shall naturally deal with the two-lane roads first and leave the three-lane roads until we have done the two-lane roads, but eventually we intend that there shall be two carriageways the whole way along it. We have a plan there.
Another hon. Member asked whether we had a system of assessing traffic priorities between one congested spot and another and one bottleneck and another. The answer is that we have. We have our divisional road engineers who keep in close touch by bi-monthly conferences.

We take the greatest care to assess the traffic priorities on each road scheme in terms of the national picture, and, so far as it is humanly possible, our resources are directed to the places where they can give the greatest help.
The hon. Member also asked me whether we intended to make these motorways for really fast traffic. We certainly do. We have now under consideration what the regulations should be with regard to speed and stopping vehicles and such things as that, so we do intend to do just what he is suggesting.
The hon. Member for Leeds, West asked me about the possibility of making the Dartford—Purfleet Tunnel and the Rotherhithe Tunnel one way at peak hours

Mr. C. Pannell: The Blackwall Tunnel.

Mr. Nugent: The Blackwall Tunnel and the Rotherhithe Tunnel. That is a suggestion which I shall be very glad to look into to see whether we can do it. Any scheme of that kind which will help us to deal with peak traffic we shall very much welcome.
With regard to the Purfleet Tunnel, we are certainly pushing on with all speed. There is no delay at all. The whole contract has been settled and the contractors are going ahead as fast as they can. It is a very big scheme indeed and will probably cost £11 million. It is also a very difficult job, as the hon. Member knows. There is very limited face on which the men can work in the tunnel and the speed is restricted by the physical difficulties of tunnelling. It is, however, going ahead with all speed and will be undoubtedly a very welcome road improvement. I quite agree with the hon. Member on that.
I think that I have dealt with the major points which have been raised during the debate, and I would bring my remarks to a close by saying this. My right hon. Friend and I have already a road programme going which is beginning to make an impression on the countryside. We can now see the work going ahead in many parts of the country to provide the road schemes which are most wanted. Of course, there are many other schemes which we should like to see going on all over the place. We are, however, making a good beginning, and gradually the


tempo will increase over the coming year, next year and the year after, and increasingly we shall see not only new schemes started but the schemes already started coming to completion.
There is no doubt that both the industry of this country and the private motorist—and indeed, road safety—will greatly benefit as these schemes come to completion. Therefore I feel that I can ask the House, although impatient to see greater results, to recognise the difficulties of settling priorities and understand that we have managed to find a place for this where our predecessors had not been able to do so. We have now a road programme which will make a real impression over the coming years. I ask the House to approve it.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

CLASS IX

VOTE 1. MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT AND CIVIL AVIATION

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £5,989,700, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1958, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation, including the salaries and expenses of the Coastguard, the Transport 'Tribunal, and the Air Transport Advisory Council, subsciptions to international organisations and sundry other services. [£3.450,000 has been voted on account.]

CIVIL AVIATION (COLONIAL COACH SERVICES)

7.18 p.m.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: The Opposition have asked for this debate in order to draw attention to an important change of policy announced by the Minister on 26th June, a change which we believe to be seriously opposed to the best interests of the British Overseas Airways Corporation and to the best interests of British civil aviation as a whole.
One reason why we need this debate is that, quite contrary to established parliamentary practice, the Minister chose not to make a policy statement in the usual way after Questions, in which case hon. Members could have obtained same clarification of it by way of question and answer. Instead, he dodged any questions or criticism by announcing his policy in answer to a Written Question from one of his hon. Friends which probably came as no great surprise to him when he saw it on the Order Paper.
If I tried to recapitulate all the implications of the Minister's statement of 26th June. I should take up very much more than my fair share of the time of the Committee, so I will try to summarise them shortly. Hon. Members will recall that some years ago. acting through the Air Transport Advisory Council, or sheltering behind it, the Government gave independent operators the right to run what were called Colonial Coach Air Services over some routes in Africa and elsewhere on which the first class and tourist services were run by the public corporations.
Those Colonial Coach Services were allowed to charge fares below the tourist rate in compensation for the fact that they were not using the most modern aircraft, so that the services were necessarily slower and less comfortable than the Corporations' services. We all know that a Conservative Government will always say that they believe in full and free competiton so that business will go to the most efficient, but, of course, they do not practise what they preach.
To ensure that there would not be full and free competition on the Colonial Coach services, the Government forbade—I repeat, forbade—the Corporations to enter into this work at all. Doubtless that was because Conservative Ministers dared not risk competition between a


nationalised corporation and private enterprise which might result in the nationalised corporation turning out to be the more efficient. If that happened, that ought to be a source of pride to all of us, but it would make nonsense of most Conservative speeches about the inefficiency of nationalisation. Presumably it was for that reason that the Government dared not risk it.
On more than one occasion we on this side of the Committee have raised the question of the erosion of the Corporations' services by these feather-bedded concessions given to private operators. On each occasion we were assured that the last concession which had been made was the last concession to be made, yet each time we found later that more concessions were made to private operators at the expense of the Corporations.
The Committee will remember that once upon a time there was a certain Adolf Hitler who was always making his last territorial demand in Europe until, a little later, he came along with another last territorial demand in Europe. That is the technique used by the Government for successively chopping bits off the traffic of the Airways Corporations and passing them, under conditions of monopoly protection, to private operators.
The most recent stage in this process was the one which was announced by the right hon. Gentleman on 26th June. It amounts to this: in about eighteen months' time most of the Colonial Coach services are bound to disappear in favour of a new level of tourist services. It was because of this that the Minister referred the question of those services to the Air Transport Advisory Council. He was very careful not to tell us—I hope that he will this evening—what were the terms of reference under which he put this matter to the A.T.A.C., so we do not know how limited or how limiting they were.
We do not know how far the A.T.A.C. was compelled by its very remit to report in the way it did. All we know is that the Minister, in a manner which one would call cowardly if one were speaking anywhere but in the House of Commons, got the Air Transport Advisory Council to do his dirty work for him.

Sir Peter Macdonald: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that he is casting a very serious reflection upon the Air Transport Advisory Council, which is a body of men of very high repute? Is he not using the debate to make reflections on the character of those men?

Mr. Mikardo: The hon. Member could not have been listening. My criticism was entirely a criticism of the Minister for getting the A.T.A.C. to do his job for him. I said it in those terms.

Sir P. Macdonald: It is the same thing.

Mr. Mikardo: It is not the same thing, and the hon. Member cannot understand the English language if he thinks that it is.
The Minister is now to do two things. The first is that for the next eighteen months, until the new tourist services come into operation, the independent operators will be allowed to use better aircraft at a lower density than up to now, thus directly violating the principle safeguard given to B.O.A.C. against unfair competition. The second is that after the new tourist services come into operation, Airwork and Hunting Clan are to be given 30 per cent. of the traffic on the East African and West African routes, including the mail traffic which was formerly reserved entirely to the Corporation.
How does the Minister reconcile that proposal with undertakings given to the Corporations and to the House by one or more of his predecessors—they come and go so quickly that one cannot keep count of them? As long ago as 16th July, 1952, the then Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation said that while the Government would no longer protect the Corporations against competition on their new and planned routes, they would continue to operate without British competition on their existing routes. Yet we are here dealing entirely with existing routes. Why has the Minister gone back so directly on his predecessor's undertaking?
On the same day, the then Joint Parliamentary Secretary, now the Postmaster-General, clarified that assurance still further. He said:
It has been made crystal clear that the existing network of the corporations is to be maintained. It will be made clear in the directive to the Air Transport Advisory Council


that there is to be no material diversion from the existing first and tourist-class services."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th July, 1952; Vol. 503, c. 2285.]
Will the right hon. Gentleman say that a diversion of 30 per cent. is not a material diversion? If not, how can he reconcile what he is doing with that assurance?
Nearly two years later, on 8th March, 1954, the then Minister renewed more clearly his assurance and undertaking. Dealing with the African services which were permitted to the private operators, he said that the service would be a
…class of service—lower than the tourist class for the same route, and there must be no material diversion from the standard or tourist class service."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th March, 1954; Vol. 524, c. 1767.]
Again, I ask whether he will say that 30 per cent. knocked off is not a material diversion?
The fact is that on this side of the Committee we have never believed that those undertakings would be honoured. The tactic of the Government has been to praise the Corporations in speeches and to work against them in practice. They have always paid lip service to a desire to see the Corporations growing and prosperous, but in practice they have always put the interests of private profit first. They have been so keen on this doctrinaire approach that on more than one occasion they have set the private operators and the Corporations at each other's throats and have ensured that neither the private operator nor the Corporations, but a foreign operator in competition with both got a new route. I have cited a number of examples of that in the Committee, and I am prepared to give more. There are now routes operated by foreign operators only because we fell between the two stools of the public and the private operator.
I little over a year ago there was a change in the top direction of British Overseas Airways Corporation, when a new Chairman and a new Deputy-Chairman were brought in. On this side of the Committee we were a bit suspicious at that time, and we said so, that one of the reasons why Mr. D'Erlanger was chosen as Chairman was that the Minister could rely upon him not to resist too actively the Government's depredations upon the services of the Corporation. The

people who worked in the industry were suspicious of exactly the same thing, and through their unions they said so in the same terms. It was as the result of this expression of suspicion that the new Chairman of British Overseas Airways Corporation asked to meet the trade union side of the National Joint Council for Civil Air Transport. He met them on 4th May, last year.
This gentleman, who seems to suffer from the strange delusion that he has a personal magnetism that can charm away all difficulties, addressed the trade union side at considerable length, and then retired, after which the trade union side minuted its opinion. It said:
The general feeling was that the Minister had some ulterior motive in making the appointments, but as a result of the great agitation against his action the matter had been soft-pedalled.
It passed a resolution which depored the nature of the appointment of the Chairman and Deputy-Chairman, and went on to say:
We feel compelled to draw attention to the fact that the trade union side has no intention of allowing the State airlines to go the way of road transport and will resist any attempt on the part of any Government or person to hand over to private enterprise any section of either B.O.A.C. or B.E.A.

Mr. F. A. Burden: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Was that a unanimous decision on the part of the trade union side on that occasion?

Mr. Mikardo: I do not recall whether it was. It was a very heavy majority decision. It may have been unanimous, but if not it was taken by a very large majority indeed. I could not be sure. Hon. Gentlemen may wonder why——

Mr. A. E. Hunter: My hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo)will probably remember that the shop stewards from B.O.A.C. came to see my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick)and myself, and gave the same decision as has been stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading.

Mr. Mikardo: I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend for that reminder, which goes some way to answer the question of the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden).
Hon. Members may wonder why the workers in the industry were so suspicious, as it now turns out so rightly suspicious. Perhaps it was because some of them noticed that the Minister had chosen to recruit his new Chairman from the board of a company which finances the purchase of aircraft by private operators, including foreign operators, and which had another director of B.O.A.C. on its board. Some may have noticed that while the new Chairman resigned from the board of this finance company on his appointment to B.O.A.C. his place was taken by a fellow-director of D'Erlanger's. Some may know that among the shareholders of this, finance company are two of the Hunting group of companies to which some of B.O.A.C.'s African traffic has now been transferred.
I state these facts baldly and without imputing motive, and, indeed, without comment except to say that if this sort of thing had been done by a Minister in a Labour Government and in support of a supporter of a Labour Government an immeasurable furore would have been let loose on the Conservative side and in the public Press. Can hon. Gentlemen imagine what a scream there would have been from those benches about "Jobs for the boys" and how our benches would have sizzled with indignation and accusation?

Mr. Burden: rose——

Mr. Mikardo: I have given way once and cannot do so again in this short debate. I am very sorry.
It was because of those suspicions, that we so forcefully expressed in May last year and that were also independently expressed by the workers in the industry, that the Minister and the Chairman of the Corporation issued a statement in which they said that it was not their intention to merge, denationalise or dismember the Corporation; but if we want to kill something we do not have to dismember it. Death by a thousand cuts is just as much death as death by decapitation. Erosion can destroy a structure just as surely as explosion.
That assurance of the Minister, like a lot of his other statements about the Corporation, is a specimen of that peculiar brand of "double-think" and

"double talk" that he always uses when he talks about civil aviation. It is highly reminiscent of George Orwell's "1984." The committee will remember that in that fictional State the slogans were "War is Peace," "Freedom is Slavery" and "Ignorance is Strength." I am quite sure that in that section of the right hon. Gentleman's Ministry which deals with the Airways Corporations there is a slogan on the walls which says, "Erosion is construction."

The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Harold Watkinson): The hon. Gentleman, by those words, is imputing something to the Ministry or to me. If he is imputing it to me, I am capable of looking after myself. If he is imputing it to the Ministry, I ask him to withdraw it at once in the full knowledge of the complete impartiality of the civil servants of the Ministry.

Mr. Mikardo: In the last few months the right hon. Gentleman has become so hypersensitive to criticism that—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] Just a moment. I do not propose to withdraw it. Since the right hon. Gentleman made that muddle over petrol rationing he has become ridiculously hypersensitive. He knows perfectly well that a Minister is responsible for his Department. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] Nonsense.

Mr. Paul Williams: On a point of order. The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo)has just cast aspersions upon the impartiality of the civil servants who operate in the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation. I ask whether that is in order or not, Mr. Nicholson.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Godfrey Nicholson): That is not a point of order.

Mr. Mikardo: You, Mr. Nicholson, with your great experience of the House of Commons and of the Committee of Supply, and all other hon. Members who are not being childish about this, will know that a Minister is responsible for his Department and that when one criticises a Department of the Government one is criticising the Minister.
I am criticising the Minister. I hold the Minister entirely responsible for all


that is done in his Department, entirely responsible, and he ought to accept the responsibility. A year ago, before he got to the stage of believing that he is divinely infallible, and before he looked upon any criticism of himself as blasphemy, he would have recognised the good sense of it, but now he has become quite insensitive. I think it is since petrol rationing.
The Board of the Corporation has accepted the Minister's new policy reluctantly and under protest. If the Board had the courage of its convictions it would have flatly said "No" to the Minister and would have required him to issue a formal directive under the Act. It put up its bit of resistance, and finally gave way. I recall the debate of December, 1955, in which the then Minister said:
It seems quite clear that if these nationalised industries are to be told, as they are told by the statutes that set them up, to run their affairs in a businesslike way and to conduct them so that they do not lose money, they cannot do that if Governments are leaning over their shoulders and saying, 'We take a different view of the commercial decisions you make.'"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th December, 1955; Vol. 547, c. 1973.]
That is precisely what is happening on this occasion. The Government are leaning over the shoulders of B.O.A.C. and saying, "We take a different view of the commercial decisions you make, and, therefore, this time we are going to make the commercial decisions for you."
I would make one last point. The Government have always said that they would like to see a bi-partisan approach to this industry with all of us, on both sides of the Committee, finding an agreed answer to the relative positions within the industry of the public sector and the private sector which would continue even with changes of Government. That is what they have said they always wanted.
I believe that there is a place for both public enterprise and private enterprise in civil aviation. What we ought now to do is to consider the whole problem with a blank sheet of paper before us, and, from the experience of the last few years, work out the proper borderline between the two sectors of the industry on the real merits of the case. Unfortunately, all the actions of the Government, particularly this last action, have virtually ruled that out. Instead of making an

orderly approach to this problem, they have gone on chiselling bits out of the public sector without any relation to what has gone before or what is to come after.
If the Labour Government which will be returned at the next Election find themselves compelled to make some drastic changes in this industry it will be entirely the fault of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues and predecessors. If the private operators exercise ordinary business prudence they ought to bear in mind before they enter into any further serious commitments that the right hon. Gentleman will not be in office forever and that he may very well be gone before many months have passed.

7.42 p.m.

Mr. F. A. Burden: I am very glad to follow the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo)because I have heard him make many excellent speeches in this House, but never heard him on such weak ground or, quite frankly, to be so testy as he has been this evening. I suggest that this evening he gained nothing by his complaints against the Minister. If he complained about the attitude of the Minister on certain occasions, he should reflect that his touchiness this evening was not what we usually expect from him.
The hon. Member said that my right hon. Friend has introduced a change of policy against the best interests of the Corporation and British aviation, but many of us on this side of the Committee do not think so. Apart from the trade unionists associated with B.O.A.C., there has not been any indication that the top executive in B.O.A.C. has made such a pronouncement. The hon. Member stated that the Government forbade B.O.A.C. to enter the Colonial Coach Services. Let us be frank about this. The nationalised Corporations showed no great desire to enter into those services, particularly during the pioneering stage. They left it to the independents to do all the pioneering in this sphere. Then, when that pioneering had been carried out, they wanted some of the benefits.
I bow to no one in this Committee in my admiration of the nationalised Corporations and all they have done in the past and, I hope, will do in future to ensure that British aviation will not only take a leading part in the world but will lead the world. I think that civil aviation


is as important to us today, and will be particularly tomorrow, as our Mercantile Marine has been in the past. We have to look at this great industry, not in terms of this or that Corporation, but in terms of expansion throughout the nationalised Corporations and the independents. I believe that with the nationalised Corporations the independents have a very great part to play if this country's civil aviation is to expand to the extent that is absolutely vital to the interests of the country.
The hon. Member complained about the competition which is being levelled against the Corporations on this particular route, but he did not say, as he might well have done, that the giant Corporations had resisted any competition whatsoever on any of the other routes. They have resisted any encroachment or suggestion that the independents should be able to fly parallel services on any of the great international routes. Is not that feather-bedding and setting up a monopoly? Is it creating terms of competition which will benefit civil aviation of the country as a whole?
The hon. Member talked about erosion of the services of the Corporations. In 1955 and 1956, when British aviation carried 13·6 per cent. of the world's traffic, 0·8 per cent. only was carried by the independents. In terms of the proposal that has been made by my right hon. Friend, it is estimated that the independents on this particular service will carry between 4,000 and 5,000 passengers a year. It is suggested that that will break the great Corporations, that this is something which will destroy the power of the great Corporations. If it will break the power of the great Corporations there must be something very seriously wrong with them.
With all the wealth they have, with the opportunities they have of coming to this House and getting grants, with their opportunities, under Government sponsorship, of buying the newest aircraft in the world, with their giant organisations, the publicity officers and their offices throughout the world, will those 4,000 to 5,000 passengers a year mean such a terrible thing for the Corporations? I suggest to the hon. Member that he should take up again the job that he had not so long ago, and at which he

was so good, the job of business efficiency, and try to inculcate some of his efficiency into the Corporation if he really thinks it will be destroyed by these proposals.

Mr. Frank Beswick: The hon. Member should not overlook the fact that if all those advantages were brought to bear the Minister nevertheless would prevent the Corporations taking more than 70 per cent. of the traffic in future.

Mr. Burden: We are dealing with this particular run at the moment. I am perfectly sure that there is no intention to extend beyond that stage.
After all that has been happening in the nationalised industries, why should hon. Members opposite object to this forum, and the Government set up by the people, exercising some control over what hon. Members opposite themselves have said are public corporations? When hon. Members opposite talked about nationalisation they lost no opportunity of telling the people that they would own the industries to be nationalised. Why should there not be some control in Parliament over these industries? Why should there not be some competition?
Because of the constant rise in the cost of the products of the nationalised industries I believe that the people of the country are beginning to say, "Let us have a little more control by Parliament, not less; more accountability to Parliament, not less." The hon. Member for Reading does his party a great disservice when he complains because we say that a nationalised industry should be subjected to just a little competition.

Mr. P. Williams: Will my hon. Friend elaborate on the figures he mentioned a few moments ago when he spoke about 5,000 passengers a year? Will he tell the Committee what that means in terms of aircraft movements per week?

Mr. Burden: It means about half a Britannia a week, 20 full Britannias a year.

Mr. Mikardo: I hope that the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden)is checking his facts properly. He said a few moments ago that I had given up a job which, in fact, I am doing actively.

Mr. Burden: I beg pardon of the hon. Member; I thought that he had given up


that job. If he is still engaged in it and keeping his hand in, as obviously he is, there is all the more reason that he should use it in the direction in which it would show most benefit.
The hon. Member also made the point that the new Chairman could be relied upon to carry out the instructions of the Minister. That is a curious slur upon a very eminent man. He also said that if his party had done as the Government have done, the cry would have gone up "Jobs for the boys." Certainly not. If the Opposition could have got a man of the eminence of the present: Chairman to work for nothing for the Corporation, I am quite sure that hon. Members on this side of the Committee would have applauded, because that would have been very astute business.

Mr. Mikardo: The hon. Gentleman should ask his hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro).

Mr. Burden: The hon. Gentleman should not get so touchy about my being associated with my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro). He has made these statements. This is a debate and I am trying to point out, as I am legitimately entitled to do, where I think the hon. Gentleman has gone wrong. He is very touchy this evening, which is surprising, because he is usually so good-tempered in these matters.
The hon. Member said that the trade unions had stated that they were not going to do this, that and the other. It seems to me to be an extraordinary state of affairs when the trade unions tell the Government precisely what they are to do or what should be done about nationalised industries. I agree that there must be consultation, and I think the hon. Gentleman himself will agree that, just as he said that the board of a nationalised industry should not be dominated by the Government, equally it should not be dominated by the shop stewards or trade unions in industry. Consultation yes, and always, because I believe that these matters can so often be resolved round a table.
When I put the question to the hon. Gentleman whether the decision that was taken by the trade unions was unanimous or not, he was not in a position to say, and, of course, I quite understand. It may well have been that there was a

big majority in favour. On the other hand, there may have been some dissentient voices, some who believed that a parallel organisation or organisations—the independents—did not mean that the power of the trade unions in the industry was being diminished, but was being strengthened. Where there are alternatives, it frequently is strengthened.
I turn to one or two other matters in this debate. Since Colonial Coach Services have been introduced, I do not think that anyone will deny that it has done a very good job in helping to open up communications in the areas which it covers. I think all of us in this House would admit that anything which is likely to develop transportation within the area, and certainly to and from Africa, will assist this country and that continent in developing the enormous resources that we know exist there, the development of which is so important, not only for the economy of this country but also for the economy of that great continent, part of which has just reached independence.
The fact that the Colonial Coach Services have not been extended, for instance, to Singapore and Malta has been due to the resistance by the Corporation to such opening up in the past. That is understandable, but I do not go all the way with the Corporation. Some opposition to the present routes has come from B.O.A.C., but there is definitely no indication that it has been to the detriment of that Corporation. In fact, through the Colonial Coach Services, there has been the creation of an air-mindedness in an area that was backward in that direction, and one of the best ways in which the traffic can be expanded is by the pioneer line which creates confidence in air travel and the desire to travel by air.
I suggest that B.O.A.C., with this new agreement, will not suffer, and that no nationalised corporation will suffer, but will benefit from this pioneering. In my view, there will be a continual expansion of the airways corporation's traffic in these routes.
I would sum up the matter by saying that there is every evidence that by the operations of independent companies in these areas, the air transport market has been considerably extended. The decision to introduce a low fare—high density service on international routes—has led to a revision of existing arrangements.
In the changed circumstances, A.T.A.C. recommended—and I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will have something to say about this—and the Minister has accepted, that B.O.A.C. shall provide 70 per cent. of the capacity required for the East African destinations, and the independent operators 30 per cent. Presumably, this means that B.O.A.C. will provide the first-class services to that country, tourist services and 70 per cent. of the new class. That is not much of an erosion, not much of a cut; certainly not. I know that the hon. Member is very touchy about the nationalised corporations, but I think that erosion is the wrong word.
Air transport is something expansionist, and I wish that hon. Members opposite would look upon the future as a great one for air transport, which will expand tremendously and constantly. Certainly, this will not cause B.O.A.C. or the nationalised corporatoins any distress whatever. Let us look upon the whole matter as one of vital interest to our country and agree that there is plenty of room for all of them. If we are to lead the world in civil aviation as we have done in marine transport, we have to look upon it from that point of view.

Mr. John Tilney: Is my hon. Friend aware that on the West Coast of Africa, the independents now have 100 per cent, of the new traffic, and that under this proposal they will have only 30 per cent.?

Mr. Burden: The position is that, of course, the nationalised Corporations come out of this very well, and not as the hon. Gentleman opposite implied.
Then, this question arises. If it is to be determined that the nationalised Corporation shall carry 70 per cent. of the traffic and the independents 30 per cent., who will determine how that is to be arranged and fix the density that is to be given to each operator, and so on? It is a great problem, and I know that it is one that must have been in the mind of my right hon. Friend. I am convinced that he will be able to expound it tonight, so that we shall have a little more information about it.
The independent companies will now be able to fly Viscounts and Hermes in addition to Vikings. I am sure that

the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick)has no complaint about that, because when we appeared together on television a little while ago one of his complaints against the independent companies was that they were not flying modern aircraft. Since this new arrangement encourages them to fly modern aircraft, I am sure that he is fully in support of my right hon. Friend's policy, and I hope that he will pay my right hon. Friend that compliment when he speaks later in the debate, as I have no doubt he will speak. We have heard a great deal about this unfortunate Corporation upon which the independent companies are encroaching, but it will be flying Britannias, and even here it has the best part of the bargain.
I know that several of my hon. Friends wish to speak, and I have almost concluded. I say quite seriously to right hon. and hon. Members opposite that many people in this country are a little concerned about the way in which our nationalised industries operate. It seems that these industries can come to the House and ask for great sums of money at almost any time. These sums are handed over to them, yet almost inevitably, year by year, the prices of the goods of the nationalised industries go up and up.

Mr. Beswick: No,

Mr. Burden: Many people in this country are aware that the price of coal has gone up and up.

Mr. Beswick: We are talking about aircraft.

Mr. Burden: The same point arises, and it is a perfectly legitimate point. Hon, Members opposite are objecting to the fact that my right hon. Friend has endeavoured to infuse a little competition in one direction. I believe that most of the ordinary people of this country would like to see more competition infused in many directions vis-à-vis the nationalised industries and private enterprise.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. A. E. Hunter: The only interest I have in this subject is in the success of the Airways Corporations and the welfare of the nation. Like the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden), I wish B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. success—and I


wish them a whole-hearted success, with none of the sniping at the Corporations which sometimes occurs from the Government back benches. It would be a great pity if the Minister gave the impression that his policy will weaken the Airways Corporations or limit their earning capacity.
I have spoken before in the House about the Corporations, because I have a large constituency interest. I imagine that a large percentage of the Corporations' employees at London Airport live in the Feltham constituency, which includes the Heath and Cranford Wards of Heston and Isleworth. In other words, parts of my constituency run well round the Airport. Consequently, I have met many of the Corporations' employees in their trade union branches, at social functions and in their homes. One point which has always impressed me has been the keenness of the staff to make these Corporations a great success in every way.
Air transport is a modern industry. The great leap forward in civil flying occurred at the end of 1945, and we saw the Corporations emerge in 1946. It is a new industry employing over 27,000 people at London Airport alone. What gives me great hope and courage for the future success of the Corporations is the keenness which the staff have in the job. To them it is not merely a matter of wages and working conditions. When I have been to their meetings or have met them elsewhere, I have seen that they are proud of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. and are very keen to make these great Corporations the best in the world.
The Minister will recall that last year, when the appointment of the new chairman of B.O.A.C. was made, there was unrest and disquiet amongst the staff at London Airport. I do not think that the Minister in his speeches has given any cause for great alarm, but the same can-not be said of some of his back benchers. I have been in the House during debates when they have attacked the Corporations, and these attacks have given the impression amongst a number of the staff that the Conservative Government are not keen on the success of the Corporations. If that impression is created the Minister must to some extent blame some of the speeches of his own back benchers and supporters.
When the appointment of the new chairman was made early last summer, I asked the Minister Questions in the House. In reply, he stated that he had no intention of denationalising, dismembering or merging the Corporations in any way, and that assurance was given to the staff. In a letter which I wrote to the Press I stated that I accepted the assurance which the Minister had given.

Mr. Burden: The only reason I intervene is to make it quite clear to the hon. Member that I wish B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. the greatest possible success, but I believe that this is such a great, expanding industry that there is room for the independent companies, too.

Mr. Hunter: I am glad to accept that assurance.
I think that this is an industry where competition should not exist as it exists in other industries. Although I do not want to mention names in the House. in some of the conversations which I have had with people with very big names in civil flying I have been assured that in their opinion private capital could not handle the needs of the expansion of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A., for example, the long-term programme of buying aircraft for 1965 and the vast capital required for airports and developments. The Minister had to introduce a Bill to permit the use of dollars for the purchase of some American aircraft which will be needed in the future. I have been assured by experts in the industry that the industry could be handled in the great way in which it is expanding only by public corporations.
The assurance which the Minister gave last summer of his intention not to denationalise or dismember the airline Corporations was accepted by the employees, but his latest act is to take away some of the Corporations' traffic. It may be that what he is taking away is a small percentage, but the employees have formed the impression that this is the beginning and that, while he may take away only a few thousands one year, in the years ahead he may take away several millions of their earning capacity.
There have also been severe criticisms by the staff about the freighting taken away from the Corporations. It will be a great mistake, therefore, if the Minister gives an impression—that might reduce


the very high morale at London Airport. and amongst the staff generally—that he is to weaken the earning power of the Corporation.
There is a news item in the Star tonight in which the Parliamentary Secretary praises Gatwick as an airport which is to be the world's finest, and one which has cost over £6 million. If we are expanding the new airport at Gatwick, we want to make sure that the training and travel possibilities of the Corporations goes on expanding. It was only two or three weeks ago that the Minister stated that there were now just over 3 million people going through London Airport this year, and that by 1964 or 1965 there would be 11 million people travelling through it, so one can see the great expansion there is for civil flying and for the Corporations if the Minister shows a determination that the Corporations are not to be interfered with by opponents of the Corporations and are to be allowed to remain the great success they are today.
It might be said that air travel is in its early days. The Corporations have now been formed for about 11 years. B.O.A.C. services are appreciated by visitors from every country in the world. That appreciation applies also to B.E.A. In Europe, everyone speaks of the high service, the skill of the pilots and the staff, and the great success the men are making of the job. I appeal to the Minister, therefore, not to take action that will weaken the Corporations or lessen their earning capacity, and not to give the impression to the staff that he is not behind them in their great efforts to make the Corporations the best and safest in the world.

8.12 p.m.

Mr. Paul Williams: It is normal, I understand, when taking part in a debate in which one has a certain interest, to declare it at an early stage. As I have done on previous occasions, I should like to make it clear that I am connected with one of the independent air operators, although not one of those directly affected by this debate.
The hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Hunter)said that he was not desirous of disclosing names of those giving information or opinions that he had received about the inability of private industry to run airlines on an international schedule

service comparable to that of B.O.A.C. That may well be so under the present set-up, but should private enterprise be granted the monopoly position, the preferential rates of borrowing and the treatment by the Government that is accorded to the Corporations, I have no doubt that private enterprise could do the job as well as if not better than is presently being done. I think that it is unreasonable in any part of the House to suggest, without going a little further into the details of the qualifications which might hedge around any future situation, that something could not be achieved by private enterprise.
It is probably agreed on both sides of the House that the interests of all parties concerned in this is—perish the word—to maximise the British air contribution to world air transport. I believe that official Labour speakers and responsible hon. Members on this side accept that world air transport is an increasing trade and that there is room in an increasing degree for the two elements in it—the independent companies and the Corporations.
The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo)referred to the Minister's statement of 26th June as being a concession to the independents. In a few moments I will, if I may, put a few questions to the Minister, and, I hope, indicate that there is little in the nature of a concession in this advance. The hon. Member referred to motions, to resolutions and to opinions passed or expressed by the trade unionists most directly concerned at London Airport and connected with civil aviation generally. If my memory is right, I believe that the last resolution to which he referred was passed about eighteen months ago, and I am surprised that, on this occasion, when we are debating a new statement and what he would, I believe, call a change of policy, he has not adduced any trade union opinion directly relevant to this issue——

Mr. Mikardo: I quoted the resolution of 4th May, 1956, because I was speaking about what happened at the time of the change in appointments. For the benefit of the hon. Gentleman, I can tell him that last Friday week the trade union side of the National Joint Council passed a resolution condemning this new policy in the most categorical terms, and reiterating within it a part of the resolution that I read today.

Mr. Williams: I am profoundly grateful to the hon. Gentleman. There are two points that arise. The first is that, as far as I know, that resolution to which he has just referred was by no means unanimous——

Mr. Mikardo: It was carried by 12 votes to 2.

Mr. Williams: Indeed, the hon. Gentleman may say that it was carried by 12 votes to 2, but I think that there is quite a difference in taking 14 votes, and then taking the totality of members throughout the London Airport. There is a difference in this matter which is of some significance.
The second point——

Mr. Mikardo: I am sorry to intervene again, but the hon. Gentleman is making a false point, and I am sure that he would not want to. In fact, the two unions that voted against are two whose membership in the industry is among the lowest, not among the highest and, therefore, the majority of six-sevenths in numbers of persons present is actually greater than six-sevenths in numbers of workers, and substantially greater than any Government can hope to command in this House.

Mr. Williams: The hon. Gentleman may be right, but it is not an automatic assumption that the proportions are the same in relation to the one-twelfth of persons. But the substantive point of all this is that over the past few years we have, in this Committee, become used to a number of resolutions and a number of expressions of opinion which have, in effect, cried "wolf" about the future—about the 1951 changes, about the appointment of the Chairman last year, and now about this statement. We have heard cries of "wolf" too often to be particularly worried about them.
I will, if I may, ask a number of questions which will, I hope, show that this alteration is not gravely to the disadvantage of the Corporations, and may well, in the long run, be to their advantage, and to the disadvantage of the independents. There are a number of particularly detailed points which I should like to put to my right hon. Friend. Is there any way of knowing what share of the capacity of these new services will come to the Airline Corporations or to the independents of the United Kingdom? As one

can see, this will be the result of Government bargaining, and as a result of that bargaining there will be the 70–30 proportions, but what assurance is there of Britain getting a fair share of the available capacity?
Who or what organisation is to ensure the division in this proportion of 70–30? Is this the responsibility of the Minister? This point, as the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick)will know, was particularly high-lighted in a number of remarks made in the magazine Aeroplane some time ago. Who is to be the controlling authority—the adjudicator? How are these services to be apportioned as between the independents and the Corporations? Are mail and freight involved in this, or is this purely a passenger service deal?
There is a great deal in all this that is so much in doubt and uncertain as to make me conclude that any opinion that has been expressed by management, by the executives of the Corporations or by the unions is based on too little fact. It is too soon now—it may even be too soon after the Minister has spoken this evening—to know how this plan will work out. I suggest to the hon. Member for Reading that to cry "wolf" again at this stage is prejudging a policy whose details are at the moment remarkably uncertain.
It is very surprising to me that B.O.A.C., the Corporation directly involved, should be entitled to 70 per cent. of a traffic which heretofore it has completely spurned and ignored. It is to acquire a 70 per cent. right in a traffic which it refused to pioneer—it may have been right to do that—and which is low revenue traffic.
The significant thing in this alteration as a result of the statement of 26th June is that the Corporations will be able, should they wish, to acquire a 70 per cent. share in the low-revenue traffic, whilst there is no compensnating advantage for the independents in the high revenue first-class traffic. I therefore come to the conclusion on this alteration that the independents are losing a proportion, and quite a severe proportion, of the traffic which they pioneered, in which they risked their all, and are being forced to let go this traffic to the Corporations which previously had shown little interest in this field.
In the meantime, the Corporation itself will maintain its monopoly position in the high revenue field. This may or may not be right, but I think it is wrong and unfair to the Committee and unfair to those who have their living in this industry, to suggest that this means savage slashes on nationalised industries. It is, indeed, anything but this.
The only advice which I will have the temerity, or perhaps the effrontery, to give to the Committee is that the proof of this alteration will be in the pudding. That is rather different from what the hon. Member for Reading believes. As I see it, this is to the advantage of the Corporations. His view or mine may be right, for the truth may be somewhere in between, but it would be wrong for this Committee to prejudge the working of this arrangement until the Committee has heard rather more from the Minister than we have heard so far.

8.23 p.m.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: Before you took the Chair, Sir William, there was a little heat in this debate and I do not think that we should be surprised by that because it seems to me that this debate illustrates the fundamental difference between the parties in this Committee. It illustrates the difference between those who believe that great services like the air service should belong to the nation and that the workers who participate in them should feel that they are contributing to a great national service, and those who, on the other side of the Committee, believe in private interests and in private profit. Whenever that issue is raised in a sharp form, there is deep feeling on one side of the Committee or the other.
It seems to me that when the nation owns a great service like B.O.A.C., it is a betrayal of national interests that 30 per cent. of the tourist traffic from this country to Nairobi, Salisbury and Accra, and 30 per cent. of the mail and freight traffic should be handed over to private interests for private profit making.

Mr. Tilney: Is the hon. Member aware that the nationalised Corporations have paid no attention to one part of the Commonwealth—I am aware of the attention that the hon. Gentleman has given to various members of the Commonwealth—that but for the independent airlines

there would be no service at all from Sierra Leone, and that if that service were taken away one would have to rely upon Air France? Would that not be a betrayal of national interests?

Mr. Brockway: I have not said that there is not a place for pioneering independent airlines. What I have said is that when the nation has constructed a great national service in which every one of us has great pride, when we have among the workers in that service a devotion to it and a devotion to the national cause which is reflected in it, it is a betrayal of national interests if we limit the powers which that great national service has. It is on that argument that I have based my remarks.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for intervening because he has reminded me that I wanted to say something else which I was going to overlook. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham (Mr. Hunter), many workers at London Airport and employed by B.O.A.C. live in my constituency, particularly now that we have the great estate which the London County Council is developing at Langley.
I say to the Committee, with a touch of direct contact which sometimes, perhaps, is missing when we are discussing these questions, that we have among those men a wealth of enthusiasm for their task. They have almost the spirit of the old craftsmen who loved to do what they were doing.
What my hon. Friends the Members for Reading (Mr. Mikardo)and Feltham have said is absolutely true, namely, that they regard the action which the Government are now taking as some repudiation of the spirit of service which animates them in the contribution which they are making.

Mr. Watkinson: indicated dissent.

Mr. Brockway: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but those who are in touch with the workers at London Airport and in B.O.A.C. know this to be true.
I approach this matter from a rather different standpoint. We are discussing the air services which traverse the Continent of Africa, flying over Egypt, the Sudan and Uganda, to Kenya, Tanganyika, Northern Rhodesia and Southern Rhodesia, on the way to South


Africa, or flying over Tripoli, French Equatorial Africa, Nigeria, Ghana and the territories of the West. For a moment or two, I want to look at the problem not from the point of view of British interests but from the point of view of the millions of Africans whom these aeroplanes serve.
It has been a matter of pride that, despite the prejudices of the countries it has served, particularly in the Rhodesias and South Africa, there has been no racial discrimination within the airlines of B.O.A.C. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, when he is entering into these arrangements with private aircraft companies, to insist that there shall not be any racial discrimination in those private undertakings, also. Is it not also possible, when he is entering into these new arrangements, for the right hon. Gentleman to utilise the occasion to ensure that racial discrimination shall be abolished not only within the aircraft but at the airports at which the aircraft call? At Salisbury, which is one of the airports to be served by both the B.O.A.C. and these private airlines, racial discrimination is practised in the most gross and aggravated form. The African or Indian traveller may not eat a meal in the restaurant by the side of his European fellow-passenger, and they may not occupy the same hotel.
When the right hon. Gentleman enters into new arrangements with private companies in this matter, will he use the advantage which he has in the negotiations to see that racial discrimination is ended not only in the airplanes but also in the airports which the airlines will serve?

Mr. P. Williams: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Minister should attempt to interfere in the internal policies of other Governments?

Mr. Brockway: I suggest that the interest of a great international air service in its passengers should not end with the amenities provided for them inside the aeroplane, but that it should use its position also to secure that there shall be racial equality in the airport services which the passengers use.
I hope that the Minister will, in addition, encourage the training of African pilots and African staff for service on

these aeroplanes. I hope that he will utilise the opportunities there are in the developing countries of Africa to staff his aircraft in that way. After all, there are great Indian and other Services which use their own nationals and what are regarded as coloured persons to pilot and staff their aeroplanes. If B.O.A.C. really is to be a British and a Commonwealth service, we ought to find a place in its service for African people, also.
For my last point, I return to the affairs of my constituency and the constituencies of certain other hon. Members. We are now finding that aircraft factories are being closed. The Hawker works at Langley, in my constituency, has recently been closed, and the great works of the Hawker-Siddeley combine at Blackpool has been closed. I suggest to the Minister that, when he is thinking of the expansion of the aircraft service, he should think of it as a national service which we should be using to provide alternatives to the work provided by the defence services in such factories as I have mentioned. If we begin to think of this in national terms and not in terms of private interest and private profit, we can co-ordinate our air service with our air factories for the benefit of all.

8.35 p.m.

Dr. Reginald Bennett: In his closing words, the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway)returned to familiar ground when he deplored profit. I should have thought that it would be by being able to make profits that any airline, nationalised or private, should be able to buy the aircraft which would keep the factories open—and open not for warplanes, about which we know the hon, Member's views.
This debate occurs at a rather pregnant moment, because we have just reached the stage when the policies for the future by either side—certainly of the Opposition—are being brought out from under the hat. We find the Opposition in an understandably embarrassed condition when debating nationalisation, which, I thought, had lately become a rather dirty word, certainly as far as new policy is concerned.
The sting, apparently, is to be reserved for those already touched with that expression, and nationalisation is to become ever more rigorous in the industries that


have already been taken over as national concerns. That is very significant, and I am sure that that aspect of this debate will not be lost on those who operate aircraft in this country or anywhere in the world. "Nationalisation" may be a dirty word as far as anything new is concerned, but it looks as if it is to be riveted ever more firmly on civil aviation should the Opposition ever get a chance to do its worst to civil aviation.
I am sure that none of us missed the threatening connotation of the words of the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo)that people had better not invest in private civil aviation.

Mr. Mikardo: I did not say that.

Dr. Bennett: I will accept that the hon. Member did not say that. I said that it was the connotation of what he said, even if he was careful not to say it. Perhaps he would like to say that he never intended any such thing.

Mr. Mikardo: I did not say that. I do not mind repeating what I said. I said that it would be normal commercial prudence for the private operators, before entering into any fresh heavy commitments, to remember that the right hon. Gentleman will not be there for ever.

Dr. Bennett: Exactly. I thank the hon. Member for repeating it. I am sure that we now understand quite clearly.
The hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Hunter), who I am sorry, is no longer present, mentioned Parliamentary criticism of the nationalised Corporations. I am sure that we can all agree that an insufficiently critical attitude has often been taken by the House of Commons. If anything, we have been united in almost too fulsome encomiums of the Corporations. We all wish them well, but many of us would wish them better.
When we consider their operating efficiencies, for example, our present nationalised Corporations, with all the monopoly privileges that we are able to give them, have a very poor numerical showing on their profit, if that is the only yardstick we want, compared with some of the American companies, for instance. We cannot afford to forbear from criticising the Corporations for not yet being anything like as efficient as they should

be. Parliament does not run these Corporations. They are to run themselves, but I think that the Corporations could be given Parliament's enthusiastic support in trying to make themselves more financially efficient. A figure of 0·8 per cent. net profit is surely not a very good business outcome.
We are dealing primarily with these Colonial Coach Services. The point that has to be made about it is that we are dealing with a traffic which was unwanted by the nationalised Corporation concerned, B.O.A.C., and was developed at risk of the shareholders' moneys by private enterprise. I do not think that that has been sufficiently stressed in the debate, although my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams)made some mention of it.
If these new T.34 services—I think that is the appropriate jargon—are to supersede the Colonial Coach services, it seems to me that the people who have developed and generated these services should hardly be expected to give them up en bloc for the Corporations to operate, which hon. Members opposite appear to desire. The Corporations are to be given 70 per cent. of somebody else's business. They will not do badly out of that, and if the business is to increase in the way we all hope it will, hon. Members who claim to represent the Corporations cannot reasonably grumble about that. It is a very reasonable expectation.
Although the hon. Member for Reading grumbles that less uncomfortable aircraft can now be used in these services, I am glad that one of his hon. Friends is a champion of better aircraft for these services. Perhaps the two hon. Members would like to arrange their joint attitude.

Mr. Mikardo: Cheap.

Dr. Bennett: I do not think it is very cheap, but I think that the aeroplanes need not be cheap and old to make a service cheap. Good aeroplanes mean a cheaper service and, therefore, one should enthusiastically support a policy that now allows the service to run with modern aircraft, though the Hermes is not particularly modern. The Opposition constantly tells us that it believes that the independent operators have a part to play, and would have a part to play under the Opposition's jurisdiction, but if hon. Members opposite are grumbling, as


they so constantly do, at every opportunity that the independent operators are ever given to play any part in civil aviation, I find it difficult to imagine what part these independent operators are expected to play in a Socialist economy. It seems to me that that part is something very near annihilation.
I have heard only single Socialist approval of independent operators—in the direction of car ferry services, which apparently still might be regarded as matters for independent operators. It seems that any long-haul service and any schedule service, even third-class, should, according to them, be taken off the independent operators and that pretty well everything should be in the hands of the Corporations, including some rather hot forms of catering for charter services.
This debate has made quite clear the threat intended by the Opposition against any form of independent business in the aircraft-operating world. It is a formidable threat. It is most deplorable for the country. I should be glad to be corrected if I am wrong, but I imagine that the Opposition wants all the future development in operating civil aircraft in this country to be substantially in the hands of the nationalised Corporations only.
I feel that if hon. Members opposite tie themselves to that attitude they are limiting the capacity of expansion of this country's air operations, because I do not feel that the Corporations alone can cover the expansion which the country needs when they are already so very substantial in size. I say in all sincerity that I do not think that nationalised Corporations—the ones that we know or new ones alongside them—are likely to be able to handle a sufficient share of the rapidly increasing traffic.
It has been said during the debate that our share of international traffic is dropping. That is most deplorable. The hon. Member for Reading looks incredulous. It has dropped between 1951 and 1956 from 14·7 per cent to 13·6 per cent. of the world total. That is most unfortunate. If that trend continues the country must admit that somewhere it is wrong in its attitude to the operation of civil aviation.
I imagine that some further stimulus is needed. I give it as my opinion that the stimulus needed for extra effort is not likely to come from nationalised

organisations. Consequently, I feel that the Opposition's attitude is a damaging one. The policy of starving out the independents to feed the Corporations would not be best for the country. At the very least it would give the Corporations dyspepsia.
I maintain the attitude that I have all along adopted, and that is that it would be well if there were more of the spirit of live and let live in the operation of our civil aviation and that the independent should be able to take a greater amount of work, which would probably bear relatively the same proportion as the world maximum rises. I believe that there is plenty of room for all and that it is completely beside the point for us to argue about the sharing out of traffic on its present basis. The future is surely what we are trying to arrange.

8.48 p.m.

Mr. John Rankin: The hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett)taunted us with the fact that "nationalisation" was a dirty word. If we look back over the history of our civil aviation debates we realise that "nationalisation" is a dirty word only when it is used by the Tory Party. Every debate in any way associated with nationalisation, the nationalisation of aviation in particular, in which I have participated has been used by the Tory Party to attack civil aviation, whether it was B.E.A. or B.O.A.C. which was involved. Tonight is another example. The debate was supposed to be about the Colonial Coach services. As usual, the Tory Party has turned it into a direct attack on the way in which the operating side of civil aviation is conducted.

Dr. Bennett: I was trying to draw attention to the fact that the Opposition no longer find the use of the word "nationalisation" likely to be electorally popular or rewarding, and, therefore, it is their own discretion which has made it so modest in its use.

Mr. Rankin: The hon. Member is completely wrong. He shows that he has not read the pamphlet which he is trying to discuss under the guise of dealing with the Colonial Coach Services. Proof of what I was saying was given by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams). He declared his interest


in the subject under discussion. That is quite proper, and we do not criticise it in any way.
When one considers the content and timing of a reply—it is part of our protest tonight—which was given to an hon. and gallant Gentleman, who also has an interest in civil aviation, and that he is merely one of a very large group of hon. Members opposite who are all directly concerned in Civil Aviation in one or other of its aspects, one realises the strength of the aviation lobby on the Tory side and that the Minister must be subject to some sort of pressure. I am not imputing any evil motive in that respect, but no one will imagine for a moment that all those people who are identified with either the productive or operational sides of civil aviation sit quietly and do not seek to advance their private personal interests or company interests by pressure on the Minister.

Mr. P. Williams: We are all interested in the Corporations, as we guarantee their borrowing powers.

Mr. Rankin: I am sorry, but I cannot give way. I am not making any insinuatino about the hon. Member. He did admit his interest. I am merely drawing attention to that fact. As I have said, every one of these debates is utilised to show the fundamental opposition which the Tory Party has to this nationalised service.
I want to say a word or two in reply to the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden), who is no longer in his place. He took up the point of view that the Colonial Coach Services would be justified because they brought in the weapon of competition. Last year, when dealing with the annual report, I drew attention to the fact that these services which are operating in Africa—which were operating. I should say, last year in Africa; there may be a change this year—were costing 6d. per mile to run. That was the cost to the consumer—6d. a mile for the ticket. The nationalised service which I used this morning, and use every Monday morning from Renfrew to London, carries me here at 4d. per mile, and we are told that if we bring the private factor into the services we shall reduce the price. That is not true.

Mr. Anthony Kershaw: The hon. Gentleman is wrong.

Mr. Rankin: I am not wrong. These are figures from the Annual Report, which we discussed a year ago. The hon. Member for Gillingham says that competition keeps down prices. He is inferring that there is no competition here. There is the competition of the railways. On the overseas side there is the agreement which is fixed among the aircraft companies regulating prices.

Dr. Bennett: rose——

Mr. Rankin: I am very sorry, but I cannot give way. The hon. Member said that there is room for everyone in the air. He is not in touch with what is happening. The problem now, so far as air transport is concerned, is that there is not room for everybody. The problem of air space is becoming very real.
It is obvious that it will be far more easy to deal with the problem of the control of air space through the nationalised Corporations than by making the carriage of persons and freight a free for all. It is not in keeping with international trends and I hope that the party opposite, which has moderated its attitude now that it is in power, will realise that it is not helpful to keep niggling at and attacking the nationalised Corporations, as hon. Members opposite have done for the last ten years.
It has been said tonight that there has been no expansion. When I began using the Renfrew-London flight D.H. Rapides, which carried five people, were used. This morning I flew in an aircraft carrying 53 people and which is one of the most up-to-date machines now in service. That is an example of expansion. The least the Tory Party in power can do is to give a little more vocal support to the nationalised services than hon. Members opposite have shown tonight.

8.56 p.m.

Mr. Frank Beswick: I do not propose to accept the invitation of the hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett)and go into the full accounts of the Corporations and compare them with American operators. No doubt we shall have an opportunity to do that later in the year.
Tonight we are considering the statement made by the Minister on 26th June,


and it is with the latter part of that statement that we are chiefly concerned. The charges which we have made against the implications of that second part of the statement are that it has stirred up unrest again among the employees of the Corporations; that the Minister has resurrected the controversy about private capital versus public ownership in the air transport industry, the controversy which we thought had been settled and put behind us; that he has made a statement which runs completely counter to policy laid down as sound economics by not only Labour Governments, but by the Coalition and Conservative Governments before that.
He has proposed a policy of parallel services in which the advantages of neither competition nor unified public ownership will be apparent. In addition, he is making a proposal which is contrary to the Air Corporations Act, 1949. He is proposing a policy which is illegal His answer to those charges is that he is merely proposing something which was a recommendation of the Air Transport Advisory Council, that he has given assurances which he will no doubt repeat tonight that the concessions will not be extended, and that in any case, the concessions are not substantial. The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams)said that there had not been concessions, but I remind him that that is the term used by the Minister himself.
I want first to deal with the issue about the Air Transport Advisory Council. That body is now being required to undertake responsibilities for which it was never intended. I have in the past paid tribute to the ability and care with which members of the A.T.A.C. have performed their duties, but it was never intended by Parliament that that body of part-time, non-representative individuals should advise on matters of aviation policy. It was given the task of considering the complaints of air travellers and was invited to make recommendations for improvements of services. It was a sort of consumers' council and nothing more.
Even when the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor gave it a new directive within which it was asked to recommend the allocation of licences, the then Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation made it clear that matters of policy were to be

excluded from reference to the Council. We had been disturbed for some time at the extension of the activities of this body and voiced our apprehensions in the House of Commons. We have said before that the Minister has been sheltering behind recommendations made by the A.T.A.C. He suggests that these carry weight which must be accepted by him. In fact, it is not so. The A.T.A.C. has no locus in this matter at all. The fact that it has suggested this concession is of no relevance in considering whether the concession is right or wrong. Indeed, as I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo)made clear, the fact that it has tendered advice on this issue of policy only justifies our concern at the whole position and future of the Council. So much for that recommendation.
I hope the Minister will not press that point tonight. If the Council makes a recommendation which is within the framework of a directive which the Minister has given to it, and which, in other contexts, would be called a "leading question." we are not surprised at all that it has given him the answer that he requires.
Then there is the point that the concessions made are to be restricted to the African routes. The Minister has given an assurance. We understand by what he said that assurances have been given to the Corporation and to the trade unions. This, as my hon. Friend has said, was to be the last territorial demand. I am not sure why the Minister should want to assure the Committee that this is the last kind of arrangement of that type. If it is to be beneficial, why is it to be restricted to Africa?

Mr. Watkinson: The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo)was quoting my predecessor. I have never made any statement of that kind.

Mr. Beswick: If that is so, I can only expect that the Minister will repeat the type of assurance that has been given by his predecessor. I can only imagine that he has given some sort of assurance of this kind to the Corporation; otherwise, it would not have accepted the arrangements which he has proposed to it.
I do not think we can place any weight at all upon any assurance which the


Minister may care to give to this Committee or to the Corporation. I will say why. I am sure the Minister will accept this. I say at once that we are not suggesting that the Minister's personal word in this matter is not to be accepted; of course, we accept it. We accept and recognise the integrity of the Minister, but I will explain why we can attach absolutely no weight to assurances of this kind.
In the first place, no Government can bind another; in the second place, it seems to be equally true that one Conservative Minister cannot bind another Conservative Minister. Apart from that, the whole post-war history of these things shows that one concession leads only to further concessions. I am not laying blame or criticising anyone, but I will say what has happened. I recall the case of the Car Ferry Service. A private firm conceived the idea of lifting cars over the channel by aircraft. It sought a licence, and I think it was entitled to it. I went out of my way to suggest that it was entitled to a licence for a longer period of years than was originally granted.
What happened? Once it had a licence—and on this understanding an assurance was given to the Corporation, which was interested—it said, "We are carrying these car passengers. Surely we can be allowed to carry additional passengers as well in order to make the service economic". One gives way when one is faced with logic of that kind. The argument is impeccable. They were permitted to carry a limited number of passengers. I speak from memory—I think the number was six. After a time, they come back and say, "You have accepted the principle. We can now carry passengers other than the car passengers. You limited us to six; we have space for ten. Why do you prevent us filling the four empty places?"
We have this technique of one limited demand followed by another. All they are asking now is to carry an extra number of passengers. The A.T.A.C. of the day recommended that they should be allowed to carry extra passengers. It was unanswerable logic. The point I make is that the original idea of a chosen instrument—B.E.A.—building up low cost air transport by operating modern

aircraft at maximum capacity goes by the board because, bit by bit, part of its traffic is drained away by this duplicated facility. The technique of making a small and limited request and, when the principle is granted, going on to insist that logically the limitation should be removed, has been followed in other cases.
It was precisely this technique which was applied in the case of Colonial Coach Services. The right was given to operate with old aircraft at extra low fares to attract fresh traffic which the Corporation would not otherwise carry. In favour of the licence being granted, a great point was made that old aircraft would be used. Nothing more was wanted. We were given a definite assurance that the Corporation would not lose any traffic. The Minister's directive of 31st July, 1952, states in terms that there should not be any material diversion of traffic by the operation of these Colonial Coach services. The directive said to the A.T.A.C.:
the proposed service is of such a nature as to generate a new class of traffic without material diversion of traffic from the normal scheduled services of any previously approved United Kingdom operator.
That was the understanding; it was to be a new class of traffic which would not be diverted from the previously approved United Kingdom operator. There was no argument in the first place about old aircraft. Then before long it was argued that there was absolutely no logic or reason why more modern aircraft should not be used. Personally I agreed with the firms concerned. Even though it was on that express condition that the original licence was granted, nevertheless in my view it would have been quite impossible to have said, "You must go on in future forever operating obsolete aircraft." There we see again this technique of one limited concession making another impossible to resist.
Now we come to one more quite different and bigger concession. An austere, third-class, so-called Colonial Coach service, a cabotage service within the control of the United Kingdom is one thing, but a licence to operate an international scheduled service parallel with and precisely duplicating services of the Corporation is quite another thing.

Sir P. Macdonald: Competition.

Mr. Beswick: I am going to deal with the point about competition later. Competition has never been asked for by hon. Members opposite, nor are they asking for it today.
We had assurances and now the Government are going beyond the limit for which those assurances were given. I am certain we shall get assurances given for the future. But once international scheduled services are allowed to private operators, what is the logical answer to the ultimate request that instead of two routes they should be allowed to operate three or four? I know something of the economics of this business. The economics of the argument would be absolutely unchallengeable. Two routes would not support the necessary overheads—that is how the argument will run—but three or fours routes would give an efficient operating unit. Additional services would make it possible to get better utilisation out of the company's fleet. Of course, it would be valid if an argument of that kind were advanced.
It seems to me that the next logical step would be for parallel services across the North Atlantic. I think we ought to look ahead. The difficulty here has been that we have been dealing too much in bits and pieces instead of having a plan which the Conservative Government were prepared to stick to. That has been the difficulty which has led to a lot of this trouble. If we look further ahead, when we have these independent companies running parallel services alongside B.O.A.C. services in different parts of the world, we shall have them coming along and calling our attention to the uneconomic character of these parallel services—these duplicated services.
They will say that the next step must be a merger between the independent operator and the Corporation, and that will bring us precisely back to the policy which the Conservative-dominated Coalition Government put forward in 1945 in their White Paper, which I propose to quote in a minute. This is what they have been wanting. This is the policy which all these people want—an opportunity to invest in the national chosen instrument. They do not want to compete against the Corporation. There has never been one single proposal for competition coming from independent operators.
They have always wanted some protection, and what they want, fundamentally, is to be allowed to put capital into the Corporation itself. That is the proposal which was put forward in the first place, and that is the proposal which they would now like to put forward. I am suggesting that they are moving step by step towards the position in which they can put it forward with some chance of success.
Several hon. Members opposite have talked about the benefits of competition in this business. I say it quite sincerely, having followed all that has been said in the business, having known what Conservative policy has been, having known what was thought about it in the Department during the formulating period just after the war, that no responsible Conservative has ever asked for real competition in the air transport industry. They have always argued for monopoly.
It was a Conservative Minister, the late Sir Kingsley Wood, who brought in the B.O.A.C. Bill, who supported it by expressing the view that competition was wasteful. It was the Conservative-dominated Coalition Government, when a Conservative Minister was responsible for civil aviation in the post-war period, who stated that they did not ask for competition. They asked for something that was precisely the opposite. In Command Paper 6605, which I recommend some hon. Gentlemen opposite to read, it is stated:
It is, therefore, a necessary part of the Government's plan, that the undertakings which will be granted the right to run air services both within the United Kingdom and between the United Kingdom and other countries"—
and this is a Conservative Minister in a Conservative-dominated Government—
shall possess such right on their allotted routes, to the exclusion of other United Kingdom air transport operators.
That is what they said, and they justified that on the grounds of air transport economics. It is precisely on the same administrative and economic grounds that we justify the services down to Africa to the exclusion—and I quote the words of the Government's White Paper—
of all other United Kingdom air transport operators".

Mr. Burden: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. What he has quoted came from the Coalition Government, but it should be borne in mind


that is a decade in ordinary terms, but the equivalent in air transport of 100 years. For heaven's sake, let us look forward.

Mr. Beswick: I shall bring it as far up to date as last week. I am about to show the hon. Member that those who understood aircraft economics in those days would say exactly the same today. The shipping interests who in those days wanted to put their capital into a monopoly service are today asking for the opportunity to put capital into a monopoly air transport route.
I hope I have made the point. It should be borne in mind that the difference between the two sides of the House has never been between a single chosen instrument and competition. The difference has been about the ownership of capital in the chosen instrument. The Conservative Party have wanted a proportion of privately-owned equity capital, whereas we have always said that the most economic method of raising capital was that of obtaining fixed interest Government-guaranteed stock, with capital appreciation benefiting not the shareholders but the community as a whole.
I come right up to the present time. The same shipping interests who wanted to enter this monopoly in 1945 with a share of the capital are not asking for competition now. The Minister is not proposing to have competition between these two parallel services. This proposal does not mean competition. It means that the Government allocate 30 per cent. of all United Kingdom traffic in these new T.34 services to certain destinations in Africa to the independent operators and 70 per cent. to B.O.A.C.

Mr. Watkinson: It may save time later if I point out that it is not traffic but capacity. The two are quite different.

Mr. Beswick: Perhaps the Minister will tell us in what respect there is a difference. The only way in which one can deal with capacity is to base it upon estimates of traffic, I know the way in which it is done. One estimates the traffic potential and then limits the capacity to meet that amount of traffic. In practice, although the terms are different the policy is the same.
I maintain that these proposals have the worst of both worlds, neither the ad

vantages of competition nor the advantage of unified operation. They will mean overlapping in services and facilities, they will mean an increase in overheads and they will mean more expenditure in the development of these African services. May I ask the Minister to consider this point? When an operator is weighing up the possibilities of increasing his frequency in the future he incurs an initial risk, and possibly a lasting risk until the new frequency attracts enough traffic, but if in the future B.O.A.C. wished to put on extra service it would have to prove to the Minister not that there was enough traffic to fill another aircraft for the Corporation but that there was enough traffic not only for its aircraft but for the aircraft of the other operator, too. Whatever additional traffic arises as the result of the development work in that part of the world, B.O.A.C. will be able to take only 70 per cent. of the traffic which is offering.

Dr. Bennett: Surely it is more likely that the Corporations will have reached agreement with the private operator concerned that the capacity on both sides is increasing?

Mr. Beswick: If that is what the hon. Member envisages will happen, then I hope he will cut out of his speeches in future anything about the virtues of competition. Of course there will have to be something of that kind. Nevertheless, my point is still valid. In the future there will have to be enough traffic not only to enable the Corporation to put on an additional machine, but also to allow the independent operator to do so.
Moreover, everything which has been said today has been said on the comfortable assumption that Ghana, for example, will always be content to allow two United Kingdom companies to operate to and from her country. How can we be certain of that? The whole argument in favour of the Colonial Coach Service before was that it was a cabotage service; in other words, it was only to be within United Kingdom territory or within United Kingdom controlled territory.
We are now dealing with independent countries. We are dealing, in the first instance, with Ghana. Soon it will be Nigeria, and a little later, of course, there will be the Central African Federation. Who is to say that they will not wish to run their own air company? Who in this


House is confident that American interests are not already suggesting that they should put up capital for a national operator in one or other of these independent African countries? They have already expressed an interest, as hon. Gentlemen will know, in the case of one country, and it is almost certain that they will make a proposal, as they have elsewhere, that the countries concerned should start a national company with an element of American capital in it. Could we then object to traffic rights being given to this new company? And how economical are our two United Kingdom companies then going to be?
I believe that it is contrary to all principles of sound airline economics to split the available traffic between these two British operators with parallel operators offering the same class of service at the same fares. I say frankly that there is more justification for this type of parallel service over the North Atlantic than there is for it down the African routes. And if B.O.A.C. accept this principle of parallel services in the one case, I do not see how it can possibly resist an extension of it over the heavier routes across the North Atlantic.
We on this side are against an unnecessary duplication of services. We are against it on the ground of efficient economical airline operation, but there is, I would suggest to the Minister, another reason for this House objecting to what he now proposes to do. His proposals are contrary to the law laid down by Parliament—and this is a view that is supported by responsible legal opinion. The Minister must have had some legal doubts. I have no doubt that he has had opinions given to him. If not, he should have done, because there are legal doubts, and I do know that they have been felt before now in the case of other concessions that have been made.
How do these doubts arise? They arise because, in the Air Corporations Act, it is laid down that scheduled services shall be the responsibility of the Air Corporations. There is no argument about that. That is the position. That is the legal position. The Act says that the Air Corporations shall have the right or the responsibility—the sole responsibility, to the exclusion of other United Kingdom operators—to operate scheduled international services.
How does the Minister propose to legalise the policy which he announced on 26th June? He proposes to legalise it by Section 15 (3, b)of the Air Corporations Act. 1949, which gives power to the Corporations to enter into an associate agreement provided that the other company is associated
…with the corporation under the terms of any arrangement for the time being approved by the Minister as being an arrangement calculated to further the efficient discharge of the functions of the corporation.
Can the Minister really say that this arrangement that he is now proposing is
…calculated to further the efficient discharge of the functions of the corporation"?
He may say that it helps "Air-Work" and Hunting Clan. He may say that it staves off his back-bench critics and [hat it is a necessary concession to all the influential pressure being brought to bear on him. He may say all that, but he cannot say that it is in the interest of the Corporation, and I do ask him to tell us on what legal ground he justifies his virtual direction to the Corporation to enter into this arrangement with these independent companies.
I had hoped that we could have left behind this controversy about the extent to which private capital should come into the air transport business. I had hoped that we had achieved a by-partisan policy in civil aviation. I had thought that the rôle had been allocated to the independent operators—not a major rôle, certainly, but then, as I have shown, neither the Conservative nor the Labour nor the Coalition Government had originally attributed a major rôle to operators other than the chosen instruments.
The rôle which I thought had been allocated to the private companies envisaged smaller and more flexible independent units doing charter work, the possibility of troop carrying, and those inclusive tours which have developed in recent years so remarkably. There was even the right in a more recent policy change for these smaller companies to develop international services to destinations not served by the corporations, and that directive—the present Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies was partly responsible for it—was still in line with the policy laid down in Cmd. 6605, and in line with the policy which the Labour Government operated. It was in line with the policy laid down by Sir Kingsley Wood.
But here we come on to something quite different. This concerns business which will be the bulk traffic of the Corporation in the future. We are not, as the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden)suggested, dealing here with 5,000 passengers a week. He ought to listen to some of his other hon. Friends about the possibility of expansion in that part of the world. We are not dealing here with something which these companies pioneered.

Mr. Tilney: rose——

Mr. Beswick: No, I cannot give way now. We are now dealing with this class of tourist traffic, which I believe will be the bulk traffic not only in Africa but in other parts of the world. Its importance has been stressed by I.A.T.A. It is precisely to carry this kind of traffic that the new aircraft of the future are being designed. The designers of the fast large-capacity aircraft have in mind precisely this type of T.34 traffic. In the ordinary way, the whole of this new traffic in the new aircraft would have been carried by the Corporation. In the future what is going to happen? Seventy travellers will go to the B.O.A.C. offices and will be given a ticket. The next thirty travellers will be told that they will have to travel in the aircraft of another company. That is not competition at all. There is no semblance of competition about an arrangement of this kind.
I believe this is a wrong-headed conception. It is not justified by any practical, administrative or economic argument. It is, moreover, as I have said, contrary to an Act passed by Parliament. I hope, as my hon. Friend the Member for Reading said, that the Minister will make it clear to the operators concerned when he has further discussions, that we do not agree with what he is doing and that moreover it will be we on this side of the Committee who will have responsibility for these matters in the future. To emphasise our difference on this policy, I shall certainly advise my hon. Friends to divide the Committee tonight.

9.29 p.m.

The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Harold Watkinson): I have sat here during the whole of this debate in, at times, some astonishment because I have wondered how remote

can hon. Members opposite get from the outside world. It really is quite astonishing. Of course, some of them have embarked on a defence of nationalisation as a thesis. I think that the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo), who is not inexpert in these managerial matters, knows as well as I do that nationalisation, if pursued as a thesis, is an utterly outmoded method of management. It is older than the model T Ford and just about as out of date.

Mr. Mikardo: The right hon. Gentleman may think that, but we do not.

Mr. Watkinson: That is what the country thinks.

Mr. Niall MacDermot: Put it to the test.

Mr. Watkinson: To try, therefore, to apply in doctrinaire fashion what is, of itself, an outmoded concept to the most rapidly changing form of transport in the world might be a very dangerous thing to do. I, therefore, want to examine this matter, as the Air Transport Advisory Council examined it, with that kind of background in view, that what matters is not what the Socialist Party or the Conservative Party decides in air transport, but what the pattern of air traffic in the world dictates. Unless we take some account of that, we shall do great harm to the Corporations as well as to the industry as a whole.
To return for a moment to the opening speech of the hon. Member for Reading, some of us, who, perhaps, do not know him very well might, on occasions, think that he is anxious to attain a reputation as the rudest man in the House. I see that the hon. Gentleman smiles, and I smile too, because those who know him better know that his bark is often very much worse than his bite. I want merely to say this to the hon. Gentleman. I do not mind his defending the Corporation. I know that he wants it to succeed. So do I; there is no difference between us on that.
I am very glad that the hon. Member made it plain that any of his picturesque allegations, which I shall read with pleasure in HANSARD, referred to me and not to my Department. He knows as well as I do that the Departments give completely impartial advice to their


Ministers and, as he says, it is the Ministers who are responsible, and, therefore, one should not make allegations, I think, about the civil servants behind them.
Arguments advanced by hon. Gentlemen opposite during this debate have been based on a complete fallacy. What is proposed is not a change of policy in any way. That is one of the reasons why I felt it quite proper to put down that very long and detailed answer in reply to a Written Question. As I told the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick), I should have preferred it to be answered Orally, but it had to be done in that way. Therefore, on 26th June, it was put down as a Written Answer, because it does not in any way represent a change of policy. At most, it is a development of existing policy. I want the Committee to understand why it has been necessary to do it.
First, I am sure that my hon. Friends who are interested in private enterprise in the air will agree with me when I say that it is, at most, simply a piece of elementary justice to allow the airlines concerned to keep the traffic which they themselves have created, and they would take the view, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams)said, that they have, after all, been very badly treated in this matter. I shall come to that in a moment or two. A policy of that kind cannot be any detriment to the Corporations.

Mr. Beswick: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that with regard to the first part of his statement or the second part?

Mr. Watkinson: At the moment, I am referring to both. I want to deal with both parts. I appreciate that the two parts are different. I shall come to that.
Just before I deal with the remit which I gave to the A.T.A.C., to which there has been much reference, I must make plain that it is not correct to imply that the Air Transport Advisory Council is some sort of consumers' council. It is nothing of the sort. According to the Civil Aviation Act, it is nothing of the sort. The Act says that the Minister may refer any matter to the A.T.A.C. that requires consideration
with a view to the improvement of air transport services

or
relating to facilities for transport by air in any part of the world, or relating to the charges for such, facilities.
I do not, therefore, make any apology to the Committee for referring this matter to the A.T.A.C. I do not know whether right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite agree, but I should like to see the status and standing of the A.T.A.C. constantly improved. In my view, we need a licensing and arbitrating body in this growing industry. I believe that the A.T.A.C., under Lord Terrington's distinguished chairmanship, fulfils the task impartially and supremely well. Therefore, I make no apology for referring the matter to it.
Whilst I will not read the whole letter—I am perfectly prepared to publish it—I should like to mention just two paragraphs. In my letter to Lord Terrington of 20th February, 1957, I said:
I am proposing to review the terms on which Colonial Coach services are approved and operated to see whether they are consistent with present-day conditions. In view of your Council's wide experience of these services, I should be glad to have their advice on what changes, if any, are desirable.
Later—and this is a point which has hardly been touched upon in this debate, although the hon. Member has just mentioned it—I said:
The…major difficulty arises from the constitutional changes that are now taking place in the Colonial Territories. Already, Sudan has achieved its independence; Ghana will become independent in a few weeks' time, So the field in which the independent companies can operate will be gradually restricted if they continue to be limited to operating their services on cabotage routes. As the independent companies have pioneered"—
no one, I think would deny that—
these Colonial Coach routes and have built up a substantial volume of traffic, it would be unfair to deprive them of the fruits of their labours simply because of constitutional changes which could not have been foreseen when the services were started.
That is the remit which I gave to the A.T.A.C. It is not unfair or biased in any way and it is certainly not adverse to the B.O.A.C. That is the first fact of which the Committee should take account.
The advice that the A.T.A.C. gave to me was, I have said, impartial advice. It is within the terms of the Act. I am extremely grateful to Lord Terrington for the great deal of trouble he took in hearing all concerned, including, of course, the Corporations. He performed a public


service in so doing. The first point, therefore, is clear. The Government take the view that the A.T.A.C. is the proper impartial body to advise the Minister on these matters from time to time.
Now I come to the next allegation that in some mysterious way, action that I have taken on which the A.T.A.C. has given advice has undermined the position of the Corporation and has in some way worsened the relationships between the Corporation and everybody else. What nonsense that is. As the hon. Member for Uxbridge knows—he is very experienced in these matters—this strange air world is a kind of monopoly. That answers all his points when he went into ancient history. The fact is that the air world was, and is, the kind of world in which we must have chosen instruments, whether one likes it or not.
There is no possibility, therefore, that whatever Governments or Ministers come and go, the Corporations can be other than the main flag carriers for this country. That is just a fact of life and existence. It has nothing to do with the policies which Ministers may adumbrate in the House of Commons. Therefore, it is my policy, as it has been the policy of my predecessors, to give every support to both B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. I know that the hon. Member for Reading is involved in all this. Indeed, I think he is still chairman of the workers' side of the joint council.

Mr. Mikardo: Of the whole council.

Mr. Watkinson: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I am not sure that the hon. Member is quite right in saying that this particular act has spread alarm and despondency. Of course, the hon. Member must protest, and so must his colleagues in the trade unions. That is their job, and I do not blame them for doing it. They must try to see, within their lights, that the Corporation gets a fair run for its money. I can show that it does. If the hon. Member pursues his inquiries a little further with the Board and others, he will, perhaps, find that I do not receive any complaints, nor do I think that there are any complaints, from the Board of B.O.A.C. at the way in which I have backed it up since I have been Minister of Civil Aviation.
If the hon. Member wants proof of that, he had better consider the quite natural and fair complaints that I get from the private enterprise industry, pointing out the enormous sums of money that are being spent on new aircraft, the great sums of public money invested in this Corporation and the way in which the Government—rightly, I think—supports it in every possible way, both in national and in international affairs.
Therefore, to say that I have not backed up the Corporation is just plain, arrant nonsense. Whilst I do not object to the hon. Member saying it, because I believe his motive is that which I share, that is, to help the Corporations, whether the hon. Member is wise to raise these old heresies is perhaps a different matter. He knows as well as I do that at the moment the Corporation is a happy and contented team. The new Chairman is doing a first-class job of work.
The Corporation has immense difficulties in breaking in the DC-7C and the Britannias, but for the first time in history those in the Corporation see a future before them, with the right kind of aircraft and with the right support. There is a feeling in the Corporation now that there is more promotion from within and that there is a Board which has more understanding. Those in the Corporation want it to be successful and prosperous. It is a very happy team.
It seems to me that the Opposition take a much less favourable view of the future of the Corporations than I and my colleagues do. If that is not so, why should right hon. and hon. Members opposite be so worried about all this? It is not a great new policy. If a great Corporation like B.O.A.C. cannot stand this very minor holding by the independent companies of what they have got—and that is all that it is—all I can say is that the Opposition do not rate the Corporation's future nearly as high as I do. Since the new Chairman took office its passenger revenue is up 19 per cent. and freight is up 14·7 per cent., and the Corporation this year, I am delighted to say, will make a profit, not a large loss, as forecast.
Is that the kind of situation in which one should come here and preach alarm and despondency about what is, with B.E.A., our greatest national instrument in the air? It does not make sense. It


does not lie in the mouths of hon. Members opposite to talk about breaking bipartisan policy and dragging this matter into the House of Commons. I did not do it. They did.
Let us go on to other matters about which the facts are not clearly known. It is said that the Act gives a monopoly to Corporations for ever and a day. That is not so. What is said is that the Corporations, their associates and agents, have a right to existing routes, but I want to encourage the extension of association between the Corporation and those who can also help in this air work. It already exists. Hon. Members know about the companies in the Middle East and the rest of the world where B.O.A.C. is already in association. I see nothing wrong with the extension of the principle of association.

Mr. Beswick: The right hon. Gentleman should not be allowed to get away with that. "Associate" or "agent" implies, and everyone in the Committee knows it, some voluntary arrangement coming from and initiated by the Corporation. Can the right hon. Gentleman say that there has been any initiation by or from the Corporation to enter into this arrangement?

Mr. Watkinson: No. I was coming to that point if the hon. Member had not interrupted me.
I was about to give the reasons why I want to see an extension of associate arrangements. Where an associate arrangement increases the possible traffic, it is clearly in the interests of the Corporation that that should take place. The fact is that this arrangement in Africa has brought more people into the air as hon. Members have said, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden). Clearly, therefore. it is to the benefit of the Corporation and, therefore, is within the terms of the Act. It is the hon. Member for Reading and his colleagues who are guilty of double-talk in this debate, and not myself. They have raised the old controversies, and quite unnecessarily.
Before I come to the details of the arrangements and the two phases, with which I said I would deal, I want to say particularly that B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. are stronger, more efficient, and more competitive than they have ever been in their

history, as hon. Members opposite know as well as I do. They have better aircraft, and better opportunities, and they are carrying more passengers. For hon. Members opposite to talk about great harm, and cutting away foundations and all those things, is not to talk sense.
Perhaps I might say one other general thing. The hon. Member for Reading, towards the end of his speech, when he became, as he always does, very factual and very apposite, said, as did the hon. Member for Uxbridge—I do not know whether they had their tongues in their cheeks or not, but my tongue is not in my cheek—that they hoped that we would gradually come to a sort of compromise in this industry. I would put one relevant point to the Committee. As was said by the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Hunter), we are dealing with 3 million passengers a year at London Airport now. The report of an expert Committee, which I hope to publish soon, will say, as the hon. Member rightly said, that we may have to prepare for about 11 million passengers in the next seven or eight years.
If the civil aviation industry is to grow at that rate, what will happen to the shipping industry on the passenger side? Hon. Gentlemen opposite should turn their attention to that. We have been preeminent on the sea, which has been part of our security and prosperity. I wonder whether the air can go on developing at this rate without—in the end, anyway; nobody knows when—making serious inroads into the shipping business.
If that be true, is it really wise to impose a tight monoply to keep those great companies, with all their knowledge and expertise, out of the air altogether? I wonder whether hon. Gentlemen opposite would care to say that that is their settled policy. If they do, all I can say is that it is entirely contrary to the national interest.
As Minsiter of Civil Aviation I am not the Minister primarily for B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. I have a responsibility towards civil aviation as a whole. That is the responsibility that my predecessors have tried to carry out, and it is what I must do, and it is what any hon. Member opposite would try to do in the extremely unlikely event of the Labour Party forming a Government. We must try to ensure


that the shipping and the private enterprise sides have some opportunities to bring to this new and expanding industry the things which only they can bring.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the car ferry service. I wonder whether it would ever have come about if a private enterprise company had not risked its money. Hon. Friends of mine have rightly said that the Colonial Coach Services would never have come about if private money had not been risked. These things increase the total number of air passengers, and as such they are clearly of advantage to the Corporations, which will always enjoy a preponderating share of the traffic and a preponderating position. Therefore, any new business which is created by any other concern must be to their advantage.
I will now deal with the two phases of this arrangement which, I think, are not sufficiently understood. I feel that the first phase—I should like to know this—is accepted by the Opposition. That is, the first proposal made to me by A.T.A.C., that, in effect, the limitation on types of aircraft under the existing arrangement should be removed. I do not know whether hon. Gentlemen opposite agree with that or not, but that is the first proposal which I have accepted. It is interesting that the only application before A.T.A.C. is one from the Central African Airways.
Be that as it may, the proposal Ls sensible in the changed conditions. After all, the Corporations will now use, and are using, Britannias, and in the world of today, which is changing all the time, one just cannot apply the tight, tidy planning solutions so loved by the Opposition. One has to change as one goes along. I take it that we are all agreed on the first recommendation by A.T.A.C.
I now come to the second phase. This is a matter for the future. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South asked me whether I could say when. I think he knows that I must tell him that I cannot say when. I do not know when the new high density T.34 services will come into being, nor does anybody else, but obviously it was right that A.T.A.C. should take some account of the future, although, as my hon.

Friend rightly said, its findings must, at the moment, be vague and largely conjectural. What it wanted to give me was some idea of what one might consider doing when one knew much more clearly that the new kind of service was likely to be brought into being.
What did the A.T.A.C. say? It said that there should be a division of T.34 capacity on a basis of 30 per cent. to 70 per cent. In other words, what it has tried to do is to split it up in such a way that the private enterprise companies hold what they have got. The independent companies made representations to me, as they have every right to do—and this is perhaps a different interpretation of the Act from that of the Opposition; but I am not sure that it is not one that holds water—that they should be entitled to all these new services because they are all new services.

Mr. Beswick: That is where there has been a lot of argument. The idea in the minds of many hon. Members opposite and apparently in the mind of the Minister is that this T.34 traffic is exactly the same as the Colonial Coach Services. That is not the case. This is all new traffic which, in the ordinary way, the Corporation, with its new aircraft, would have had entirely to itself.

Mr. Watkinson: The hon. Gentleman has made my point for me. He says that this is all new traffic. It is a new service.
There is a case to be made by the independent companies which say that they should be having 70 per cent, or more and the Corporation should be having a lesser share. Do not let us think for a moment—I think this is important to the hon. Gentleman—that this is widely welcomed by the private enterprise companies. I assure him that it is not welcomed at all. They do not think that this is a fair distribution of what they have built up by their own enterprise and money. Do not let him run away with the idea that I am giving some great and prized favour to these companies. They do not take that view at all. That reinforces our statement about the desirability of A.T.A.C. arbitrating on matters of this kind, because it is independent and can take the national interest firmly into account.
I say again that this contention that the Corporations are in some way being


harmed is false because the new arrangements, in the view of the A.T.A.C., will only secure and retain the independent companies' traffic rights which they built up for themselves over a period of years and which, originally, the Corporations themselves did not want. The two sides of the Committee may differ on that, but there it is. That is just as much a relevant fact as the great amount of contrary views which have been put forward in this debate.
Therefore, I would say again that it is my job, with what advice I can get—and I prize the advice of A.T.A.C. very highly—to try to get a fair balance in this rapidly changing and expanding world. I want to keep that balance so far as I can in order to see that the British airlines and the British flag get the greatest possible share of traffic.
Let us taks Ghana, for example. How do we know that Ghana will wish to select B.O.A.C. as its chosen instrument? It may want its own line or get an American company to do it or an independent British company to do it and Ghana, being an independent sovereign State, must have the right to choose. I do not see why I should bar an independent company, well known in that country, as in others, of having a chance of getting it if it can. There again, it is purely a matter of being fair and of giving all interests in the air industry a fair crack of the whip and a fair chance.
The hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway), who is not in his place, said that he was worried about the aircraft industry. No doubt. So are we all. He could not have made my case better for me, because if there is a case for encouraging independent companies it is to increase the size of the home market. There again, I find this astonishing difficulty which the Opposition always have in trying to relate nationalisation to the facts of life. It is a very difficult thing to do.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett)that the Government should try to keep a fair balance in these matters and that we should try to see that the independent companies, having risked their own money and having built up their business with enterprise and great difficulty, should merely be allowed to keep for themselves what they have built up. That is what I intend to do and that is what this quite impartial recommendation to me suggests. It does no more and no less. It is, therefore, in no way harmful to the interests of the Corporation.

I have no need today to restate all the statements which I and my predecessors have made about the Corporation, because they are perfectly well known to the Board. The Board knows that I am as anxious as anybody in the Committee, and more than many, to see B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. doing better every year and I shall do all I can to assist them to that end. That does not mean that I will abrogate my responsibility to give a fair crack of the whip to a firm which has done its best to build up something and which has increased the total air trade available for us all.

I think that that is desirable and not undesirable. The Opposition will be extremely unwise if they go into the Lobby against something which is elementary justice in the interests of the Corporation itself. If the Opposition wish to push monopoly and nationalisation to those extreme ends, let them vote and be hanged to them.

Mr. Beswick: I beg to move, That Class IX, Vote 1, Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation, be reduced by the sum of £100.

Question put, That a sum not exceeding £5,989,600 be granted for the said Service:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 190, Noes 237.

Division No. 173.]
AYES
[9.57 p.m.


Albu, A. H.
Beswick, Frank
Brockway, A. F.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Blackburn, F.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Blenkinsop, A.
Brown, Thomas (Ince)


Awbery, S. S.
Blyton, w. R.
Burke, W. A.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Boardman, H.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)


Balfour, A.
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. C.
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Carmichael, J.


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Bowles, F. G.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)
Boyd, T. C.
Champion, A. J,


Benson, G.
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Chapman, W. D.




Chetwynd, G. R,
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Randall, H. E.


Coldrick, W.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Rankin, John


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Redhead, E. C.


Collins, V.J.(Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Reeves, J.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Kenyon, C.
Ross, William


Deer, G.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Short, E. W.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
King, Dr. H. M.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Delargy, H. J.
Lawson, C. M.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Dodds, N. N.
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Skeffington, A. M.


Dye, S.
Lindgren, G. S.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Edelman, M.
Lipton, Marcus
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Logan, D. C.
Snow, J. W.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Sorensen, R. W.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
MacColl, J. E.
Soskice, Rt. Hon, Sir Frank


Fernyhough, E.
MacDermot, Niall
Sparks, J. A.


Finch, H. J.
McInnes, J.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Fletcher, Eric
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Stonehouse, John


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Stones, W. (Consett)


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)
Mahon, Simon
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Gibson, C. W.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Gooch, E. G.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Swingler, S. T.


Greenwood, Anthony
Mason, Roy
Sylvester, G. O.


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Mayhew, C. P.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Grey, G. F.
Mikardo, Ian
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mitchlson, G. R.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Monslow, W.
Thornton, E.


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Moody, A. S.
Tomney, F.


Hale, Leslie
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)
Viant, S. P.


Hamilton, W. W.
Moyle, A.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Hannan, W.
O'Brien, Sir Thomas
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Oram, A. E.
West, D. G.


Hastings, S.
Orbach, M.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Hayman, F. H.
Oswald, T.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Healey, Denis
Owen, W. J.
Wigg, George


Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Herbison, Miss M.
Palmer, A. M, F.
Wilkins, W. A.


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Willey, Frederick


Holmes, Horace
Pargiter, G. A.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Parkin, B. T.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Hubbard, T. F.
Paton, John
Williams, Rt. Hon, T. (Don Valley)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Peart, T. F.
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pentland, N.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Hunter, A. E.
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Prentice, R. E.
Winterbottom, Richard


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Woof, R. E.


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Probert, A. R.
Zilliacus, K.


Janner, B.
Proctor, W. T.



Jeger, George (Goole)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Body, R, F.
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)


Aitken, W. T.
Bossom, Sir Alfred
D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Braine, B. R.
Deedes, W. F.


Alport, C. J. M.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Brooman-White, R. C.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.


Arbuthnot, John
Bryan, P.
Doughty, C. J. A.


Armstrong, C. W.
Burden, F. F. A.
Drayson, G. B.


Ashton, H.
Butcher, Sir Herbert
du Cann, E. D. L.


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Carr, Robert
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)


Atkins, H. E.
Channon, Sir Henry
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David


Baldwin, A. E.
Chichester-Clark, R.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. (Kelvingrove)


Balniel, Lord
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston
Elliott, R.W.(N'castle upon Tyne, N)


Barber, Anthony
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Errington, Sir Eric


Barlow, Sir John
Cole, Norman
Farey-Jones, F. W.


Barter, John
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Finlay, Graeme


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Cooke, Robert
Fisher, Nigel


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Cooper, A. E.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Foster, John


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonedale)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Freeth, Denzil


Bidgood, J. C.
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Gammans, Lady


Bishop, F. P.
Currie, G. B. H.
Garner-Evans, E. H.


Black, C. W.
Dance, J. C. G.
George, J. C. (Pollok)







Glover, D.
Leavey, J. A.
Rawlinson, Peter


Glyn, Col. R.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Redmayne, M.


Goodhart, Philip
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Remnant, Hon. P.


Gough, C. F. H.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Ridsdale, J. E.


Gower, H. R.
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Robertson, Sir David


Graham, Sir Fergus
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Grant, W. (Woodside)
Longden, Gilbert
Roper, Sir Harold


Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Green, A.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Russell, R. S.


Gresham Cooke, R.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.


Grimond, J.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R, G.
McAdden, S. J.
Sharples, R. C.


Gurden, Harold
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Shepherd, William


Hall, John (Wycombe)
McKibbin, A. J.
Simon, J. E.S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Harris, Reader (Heston)
McLaughlin, Mrs, P.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Speir, R. M.


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Hay, John
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Storey, S.


Hesketh, R. F.
Maddan, Martin
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Summers, Sir Spencer


Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hirst, Geoffrey
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Hobson, John (Warwick &amp; Leam'gt'n)
Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.
Temple, John M.


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Marshall, Douglas
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Holt, A. F.
Mathew, R.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Hornby, R. P.
Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Mawby, R. L.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)


Horobin, Sir Ian
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Howard, John (Test)
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Hurd, A. R.
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh.S.)
Nairn, D. L. S.
Vane, W. M. F.


Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)
Neave, Airey
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Vickers, Miss Joan


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan
Wade, D. W.


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Nugent, C. R. H.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Oakshott, H. D.
Wall, Major Patrick


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Page, R. G.
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Joseph, Sir Keith
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Partridge, E.
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Peyton, J. W. W.
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Kershaw, J. A.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Lagden, G. W.
Pitman, I. J.
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Lambert, Hon. G.
Pott, H. P.
Wood, Hon. R.


Lambton, Viscount
Powell, J. Enoch
Woollam, John Victor


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Price, David (Eastleigh)



Langford-Holt, J. A.
Profumo, J. D.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Leather, E. H. C.
Ramsden, J. E.
Mr. Edward Wakefield and




Mr. Hughes-Young.

Original Question again proposed.

Dr. Bennett: rose——

It being after Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

NAVAL DISCIPLINE BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 118.—(APPLICATION TO CERTAIN CIVILIANS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 54, line 13, leave out "Her Majesty's dominions" and insert:
the United Kingdom or any colony".

10.6 p.m.

The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Christopher Soames): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
As the House is aware, the purpose of Clause 118 is to enable civilians who are accompanying or employed by the Armed Forces overseas to benefit from the N.A.T.O. Status of Forces Agreement and similar agreements which authorise the tribunals of the visiting force to try its own people in the host State. There is no difficulty about this so far as the members of the Armed Forces are concerned, because they are subject to Service law and Service discipline wherever they may be, but special steps have to be taken for


civilians because, unless they are made subject to Service law to at least this extent, no United Kingdom tribunal can deal with them for offences committed overseas.
As passed by this House, the Clause made civilians subject to the Naval Discipline Act to the extent which it is required outside Her Majesty's Dominions. We have since found that that is not quite sufficient, because Canada is a member of N.A.T.O. and we have similar agreements with some other Commonwealth countries. It is therefore now proposed that the clause on this particular form of jurisdiction which before said,"Outside Her Majesty's Dominions", should now read:
outside the United Kingdom or any colony.
The Army and Air Force Acts both authorised this.

Mr. A. G. Bottomley: The Parliamentary Secretary deserves congratulations, as he has put it clearer than the Lords did. In this respect, we concur.

Question put and agreed to.

Sixth Schedule.—(ENACTMENTS REPEALED.)

Lords Amendment: In page 71, line 32 at end insert:


"47 &amp; 48 Vict. c. 39.
The Naval Discipline Act, 1884.
The whole Act.'

Mr. Soames: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I thank the right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley)for his kind words. I think he will find this considerably easier. This Amendment is the first of a series of formal Amendments. The enactments referred to will, in any case, cease to have effect when the Naval Discipline Act, 1866, is repealed, but as a matter of form, I am told that they ought to be repealed and these Amendments are designed with that object.

Question put and agreed to.

Further Lords Amendments made: In line 34, at end insert:


"9 Edw. 7. c. 41.
The Naval Discipline Act, 1909.
The whole Act."

In line 40, at end insert:


"5 &amp; 6 Geo. 5. c. 30.
The Naval Discipline Act, 1915.
The whole Act.


5 &amp; 6 Geo. 5. c. 73.
The Naval Discipline (No. 2)Act, 1915.
The whole Act.


7 &amp; 8 Geo. 5. c. 34.
The Naval Discipline Act, 1917.
The whole Act.


7 &amp; 8 Geo. 5. c. 51.
The Air Force (Constitution)Act, 1917.
Section seven and the First Schedule.


12 &amp; 13 Geo. 5. c. 37.
The Naval Discipline Act, 1922.
The whole Act."

In line 46, at end insert:


"1 &amp; 2 Geo. 6. c. 64.
The Naval Discipline (Amendment)Act, 1938.
The whole Act.


4 &amp; 5 Geo. 6. c. 29.
The Naval Discipline (Amendment)Act, 1941.
The whole Act."

In line 51, column 3, leave out "In section thirteen, subsection (3)." and insert "Section thirteen".

In page 72, line 15, at end insert:


"5 &amp; 6 Eliz. 2. c. 6.
The Ghana-Independence Act 1957.
In section four, in subsection (2), the words 'and in section eighty-six of the Naval Discipline Act as amended by the revision of the Army and Air Force Acts (Transitional Provisions)Act, 1955 Soames.)

GREENWICH HOSPITAL AND TRAVERS' FOUNDATION

The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Christopher Soames): I beg to move,
That the Statement of the Estimated Income and Expenditure of Greenwich Hospital and Travers' Foundation for the year ending on 31st March, 1958, which was laid before this House on 25th June, be approved.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I speak at the end of the debate, in order that I may then answer any points which hon. Members wish to raise.

10.12 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Steele: I am very pleased indeed to see the former Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty here this evening, because I am sure that he will be interested in this debate. This year, the debate has returned to the form which it took in previous years until last year, when the Parliamentary Secretary, when moving the Estimate, indicated that he wished to speak first, as he had an important policy decision to announce to the House. He told us last year about the mounting expenditure, and the fact that the necessary maintenance and renewal work on the Royal Holbrook School was being held up. With some reluctance, he announced to the House that it had been decided that parents would have to make a contribution towards the school, which meant that fees would be asked for this school for the first time.
Naturally, we should like to ask one or two questions this year about what has happened. First, the hon. Gentleman told us that one of the things that was necessary was the reorganisation of the kitchens. He said that this work had to be put in hand, and perhaps he can now tell us if, with the extra money that is is being made available, something is to be done about it.
In regard to fees, I have read with some interest the debate that took place last year, and I must confess that the answers given to some of my hon. Friends were not too clear too me and not altogether satisfactory. That applied particularly to the replies to some of the questions asked

by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart), who is here this evening. The calculations which my hon. Friend made last year I have examined with care, and I think we ought to have some further explanation this year.
The Parliamentary Secretary said that, in the first year, that is to say, not a complete year, they expected to receive about £500. I should like to know how much was received, because the Parliamentary Secretary went on to say that in a full year he estimated that between £5,000 and £7,000 would be received for fees. I tried to work out the estimate from the White Paper. Unfortunately, it is very difficult. In page 5, we read:
Grant by the Ministry of Education and fees payable in respect of boys in the School. £15,485".
I do not know whether the Ministry of Education grant is higher this year than last, but I hardly expect that it will be.
Last year it was £1,485, which, I understand, was based on a grant of 45s. per year for each boy. If that is the case and that was the Ministry of Education grant for the year which we are discussing, it means that the estimate of £14,000 for fees is twice as much as the Parliamentary Secretary estimated would be the return for a full year. We ought to know why the estimate is shown at so high a figure. Perhaps in a future year, when the White Paper is published, the grant from the Ministry of Education and the fees which it is estimated will be paid by the boys can be shown separately, so that we may know exactly where we stand.
If the Parliamentary Secretary can give us a little information about the experience of the school I think we shall be grateful. What about the sons of serving sailors? Is the full £72 being paid by parents, or is it all being paid from the Government Vote? Can we have a little information about how the money is being obtained? Could the hon. Member tell us whether the local authorities are co-operating, how many boys are being assisted by the local authorities and how many are being paid for by the parents? Could we be told whether any boy has been unable to take his place because the money is not available? That is important. We want to know exactly


how the scheme has been working and whether the decision that fees should be asked for the first time is in any way denying the right of any boy to attend this school who, otherwise, might have been able to attend it.
I wish to ask one other question, merely for information, and it concerns an item in page 3 which intrigued me. I have done some research into it. It reads:
Parliamentary Grant: Receipt from the Consolidated Fund in lieu of Merchant Seamen's Sixpences Act, 32 &amp; 33 Vict, c. 44–4,000.
I thought I would do some research to see what this was all about. I looked up the original Act, and the proceedings in 1869 when it was passed, and I found a very interesting speech by a Mr. Liddell. He informed the House that the Bill recognised for the first time the claim of merchant seamen to some share in the emoluments of the Hospital. He thought that that was right and reasonable, and went on to say how satisfied he was with the finances of the Hospital and how flourishing they were.
As I read his speech, I discovered that in 1869 the Government were, in fact, taking away a grant of £16,000 a year which they had been giving and that one of the speaker's complaints was that, under the Bill, the School was being asked to do more with less money. That is, perhaps, not anything new on the part of Governments.
The other interesting thing was that he said that a committee had been set up to examine the Greenwich Hospital and one of his complaints was that, by the Bill, the Board of Admiralty was doing exactly opposite to what the committee had reported. Again, that is nothing unusual for the Board of Admiralty.
This sixpence was paid by merchant seamen each month from their wages and went to the Hospital to enable them to get some benefit there. This £4,000 which the Government agreed to pay out of the Consolidated Fund was in lieu of those sixpenses. The year 1869 is a long time ago, and the interesting thing is that the £4,000 which the Government agreed to pay out of the

Consolidated Fund remains at that figure in 1957. This sum was, in fact, paid to assist the merchant seamen.
The Parliamentary Secretary might look at that. I have tried to work it out for myself, and as far as I can measure, the present-day equivalent sum would be £14,000. I hear an hon. Friend say that it would be a lot more. I was disappointed myself, but my calculations, which were examined by the statisticians in the Library, assured me that £14,000 would do. If the Parliamentary Secretary can convince the Treasury that it should raise the £4,000 to £14,000 I think that we should all be a bit happier. There is no reason why it should not do so. Those are the two points that I put to the Parliamentary Secretary and perhaps he will be able to say what he thinks about them.

10.23 p.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart: I should like to add just a few words to what my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele)has said about the Royal Holbrook School. Last year we regretted the fact that the school, at which there had never before been any fee paying of any kind was to introduce such a system; that the system of completely free schooling was passing away. The Under-Secretary of State for Air then said that he joined with us in lamenting its passing. Well, we are still lamenting it. If any attempts were made to soften the hearts of either the Board of Admiralty or of the Ministry of Education they were, apparently, unsuccessful, and the system of fee paying is now being planted on this school.
I followed with interest my hon. Friend's calculations, and I would agree with him that we ought, in the returns, to have stated separately the Ministry of Education contribution—abjectly small though it is—and the amount paid in fees. I agree that, from the information that we have, the amount paid in fees is already in the neighbourhood of £14,000 although, if I have the matter aright, it applies only to boys who have recently come into the school. Whether or not that is so, we have this fact.
There are 640 to 650 boys in the school. A total amount in fees of £14,000 is being paid. That means that the average


amount being paid per boy is £25 and not all the boys, I believe, come into this fee-paying scheme yet. The maximum sum that any parent was to be asked to pay was £72, and it is expected from what we were told last year that in time the total amount collected in fees will be not £14,000, but £30,000. That will be getting on for £50 per boy on the average, which means that quite a lot of them will be paying up to the full maximum of £72 a year.
In the light of those figures, it would be interesting to know how many of the boys now at the school are paying fees at all, how many of them are paying the maximum scale and what is the experience so far gained of the way in which the scale is working out? Is it, as my hon. Friend asked, precluding any boys from going to the school who would otherwise have gone there, or is it imposing really unreasonable hardship on the parents who are just managing, and perhaps no more, to be able to find the fees?
Another point that I should like to raise is this. We were told last year, as part of the consolation for what was happening, that in a number of cases the local education authorities would pay the fees. I never quite see how one achieves an economy with public money and takes a step forward in the battle against inflation by causing the ratepayers to find it, instead of the taxpayers, but that is by the way. We were told that the local authorities, in a number of cases, would pay the fees. I have two questions to ask, one of which I think the hon. Gentleman will be able to answer and the other I am not quite so sure about.
What I think the hon. Gentleman will be able to answer is this. In how many cases are the local education authorities paying either the whole or part of the fees that are charged in respect of these boys? Could we possibly be told if there are any local education authorities which have proved unwilling to pay fees for any boys for whom they are responsible who are going to this school?
The other question is this, and perhaps it lies a little outside the hon. Gentleman's province. We have recently been provided with the Government's proposals relating to local government finance, one result of which will be that if any local education authority, once those

proposals are in force, elects to pay fees of this kind instead of getting a 60 per cent. Government grant, the whole cost will have to fall on the rates. Does the hon. Gentleman think that if the proposals on local government finance go forward local authorities will be more or less likely to pay the fees for the boys going to this school?

10.28 p.m.

Mr. E. G. Willis: I join with my hon. Friends in asking one or two questions about the Royal Holbrook School, because I have had an interest in this school for a great many years. In fact, for about fifteen years I was responsible for sending boys to this school, and I am bound to say that what has been happening during the last ten years causes a considerable amount of concern that there is a departure from the intentions of the original founders of the school.
I remember quite well the debates that took place immediately after the war, when the higher standards were introduced in this school, and the same questions were asked then as my hon. Friends have asked now about fee paying, namely, whether this would bar any boy who is entitled to go to that school from doing so. We had the answer which, no doubt, my hon. Friend will get tonight, that no boy will be barred from going to that school. But in my practical experience of boys going to that school, because of the higher standards that were set for entrance to this school, boys whom the committee with which I was associated would have sent to the school were not sent. That indicated to me quite plainly that certain boys were not enjoying the rights that they should have enjoyed at the school.
It seems to me that with the introduction of fee paying to the school, that departure from principle will be extended. I cannot imagine education authorities paying fees for boys who do not measure up to certain standards, and in course of time these standards will be raised still higher. What is happening here is the same thing as has occurred concerning a vast number of schools which were founded in past centuries for the children of poor parents.
The original foundation of the school, which goes back considerably into history, was for the care and maintenance


and education of children of seamen, naval and mercantile, and especially the orphans and sons of poor parents. Those are the children for whom it was intended. I cannot see how the present developments will lead to the school being kept for that purpose. In fact, as I have indicated, my own experience was that when the standards were raised after the war, that did not happen. I am very much afraid that with the introduction of fee-paying, the departure from that principle will be much greater.

Commander J. W. Maitland: Can the hon. Member say in how many cases it did not happen?

Mr. Willis: I was not responsible for sending hundreds of boys, but the committee with which I was associated and for whom I happened to be secretary did send to the school each year a few orphaned boys who had reached the age of 11 and for whom it could no longer cater.
For many years, until the end of the war, these boys went almost automatically to the school, no matter what educational standard they had reached. After the new standards were introduced, however, we had to find other outlets for these boys. We could not send them there and we had to send them to one of the other naval orphanages which catered for boys of 11.

Commander Maitland: indicated dissent.

Mr. Willis: The hon. and gallant Member shakes his head. That is practical experience.

Commander Maitland: Very interesting.

Mr. Willis: Of course it is, but that is what has been happening. That is a process which, I fear, will develop more and more.
I cannot imagine education authorities paying considerable fees for boys to go to this school unless they measure up to certain standards. As soon as we commence to introduce these qualifications for entry to the school and make it more difficult, we depart from the original purposes of the foundation.
In that connection, I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary, when he replies, can give information about the

number of orphans now being admitted to the school, the number of entrants with one parent alive and the number with both parents living. We might also be given information concerning the total number of orphans at the school as well as the number who entered last year.
In asking for this information, I appreciate that developments have taken place during the past twenty-five years and that the demand for assistance for orphans has to some extent diminished as a result of the Welfare State, which, I agree, creates a problem for the managers of the school. Nevertheless, we ought to be told what is happening, so that we might judge what I fear to be the inevitable process of the departure of the school from the original purposes for which it was set up.

10.35 p.m.

Mr. Soames: We have had an interesting debate, and I am grateful to the hon. Members who have taken part for raising the various points that have been made. I know that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis)would agree with me that there is no difference on each side of the House in the way we feel about the imposition of fees at Holbrook School. Of course we regret it, but whoever is responsible for the administration of this great and important trust is responsible to the trust as a whole, of which the school forms part. It was, of course, with regret that it was decided that it was necessary to impose fees. My right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for Air explained the matter in some detail last year and I do not want to go into all the arguments, but we regret as much as does the hon. Member that it was found necessary.
The standard of entry will not be altered as a result of this imposition of fees. That there is greater competition now arises from the fact that the number of applicants exceeds the number of places that are available. There is inevitable competition, but I can assure the hon. Member that preference is definitely and deliberately given to cases in which there are compassionate grounds for the boy to enter the school. The question of fee paying does not in any way interfere with the selections made by the Selection Board. The hon. Member asked me how many orphans there were in the school. Last year, there were


seven with both parents dead. 73 whose fathers' death was attributable to service, and a further 46 whose fathers' death was due to other causes, making a total of 126.

Mr. Willis: In the school?

Mr. Soames: Yes—orphans in the school last year.

Commander Maitland: Can my hon. Friend say definitely whether boys who were orphans, and had the right to go to the school, were refused admission?

Mr. Soames: I certainly have no record or any knowledge of such a case, but I will look into the matter and let my hon. and gallant Friend know.
I come now to the main points raised by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele)and the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart). They will appreciate that this fee-paying system has been in operation for only two terms and not for a full year and that it is difficult to assess the full effects. It is natural, however, that hon. Members should take this, their only opportunity until this time next year, of raising the matter in debate. I will endeavour to give them all the information I can, based, as they will understand, on the experience of only two terms.
I am glad to be able to inform the House that the system has worked smoothly and satisfactorily. We are grateful that so many local education authorities in a large number of counties have been able to give assistance to parents. I could not give the numbers of local education authorities which have or have not refused, but I can say that in the relatively few cases where assistance has not been forthcoming the trust has found ways and means of avoiding hardship. It is true to say—as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East predicted that I would say—that no boy has been turned down through the inability of his parents to pay the fees.
It is understandable that the different local education authorities may have different ideas and different conceptions of the needs concerned. So, indeed, might the trust if there came up a case of a boy to whom a local education authority had not felt able to provide a grant. But the important point, about which the House would wish to be satisfied, as was

foreseen by my right hon Friend when he explained the introduction of fee-paying last year, is that no boy has been turned away because of the inability of his parents to pay the fees.
The question of the kitchen was raised. I am looking forward to visiting the school on Saturday, and I intend to look at the kitchen. I understand that it needs considerable improvements. The fact that we have been able to raise a sum of money for two terms has not enabled us yet to tackle that problem. It is appreciated that the work needs doing. It is one of the things that need doing in the school, and it was one of the reasons why it was necessary to impose fees. So far, the extra money found by way of fees has gone to meet the increased cost of running the school and has not been devoted to structural or other improvements.
The hon. Members for Fulham and Dunbartonshire, West referred to the estimate of £14,000—that is, in fact, the figure; the grant from the Ministry of Education is the same as it was last year—which compares with the figure, of between £5,000 and £7,000 which was mentioned by my right hon. Friend in his speech last year.
I would point out that the reason why that very conservative estimate was given by my right hon. Friend was that we did not know—it was not known at the time—in how many cases it would be necessary for the trust itself to provide money for the schooling of boys in order to implement the pledge that no hardship would fall on a boy. It was a deliberately conservative estimate. We had no experience of it, and we could not tell to what extent the load would fall upon the Trust. In fact, it has worked out, with the co-operation of local authorities, that the receipts are considerably greater than what was intentionally a very conservative estimate.
Reference was made by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West to the £4,000 which dates back to 1869. It is a very interesting point. I find it hard to believe that a figure of £14,000 now would represent the fall in the value of money since 1869. If that is so, the cost of living cannot have gone up much recently. I found the general conception put forward by the hon. Gentleman most interesting, and I will certainly have the


matter examined. I cannot hold out any assurance that we shall be successful in getting an increase in the Parliamentary grant, but there is no doubt about the validity of his argument that the £4,000 of 1869 is worth a lot less than that in terms of real money today. But I will certainly look into the matter.
We have had a most interesting debate. I hope that I have been able to cover the majority of the points which were raised, and that the House will see fit to approve the estimate.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Statement of the Estimated Income and Expenditure of Greenwich Hospital and Travers' Foundation for the year ending on 31st March, 1958, which was laid before this House on 25th June, be approved.

POLICE HEADQUARTERS, HOVE (SITING)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Oakshott.]

10.44 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Marlowe: The matter to which I wish to draw the attention of the House tonight may at first appear to be one of purely local interest. To some extent it is, but it also raises much wider implications about the relationships between various kinds of local authorities, especially the increasing extent to which friction may arise between a non-county borough and the county council of which it forms part.
The matter with which I am concerned relates to the siting of a new police headquarters in the Borough of Hove. It has long been agreed on all sides that a new police headquarters has been required, and before the war a plan was already afoot for such a new headquarters to be built. In those days, the Borough of Hove had its own police force and, therefore, had autonomous jurisdiction over matters of this kind. However, by Socialist legislation passed in 1946, and perpetuating a temporary wartime arrangement, the Borough of Hove ceased to have its own police force, which became merged with that of the County of East Sussex.
When an attempt was made by the Borough of Hove to build a new police headquarters on a site which was of its own choosing, interference came from the East Sussex County Council, which, being the police authority, probably has the last word in matters of this kind today. In correspondence which I had with the Minister he failed to appreciate the point at issue, which is that it is my contention that a non-county borough of the size and status of Hove is entitled to have its police headquarters built in a place of its own choosing and not somewhere dictated by the outside authority, that is to say, the county council.
I do not want to weary the House with a great deal of detail about the differences between the two sides. The argument centres around the following. The present police headquarters forms part of the town hall and is centrally situated for police and magisterial jurisdiction. The


edict of the county council will have the effect of removing the police headquarters from its present very convenient situation to a site which has none of those advantages. It will be a site half a mile away from the town hall—and I shall have something more to say about that in a moment—and it will be almost on the eastern boundary of the police and magisterial area. It will be a place where buses are a great deal less convenient than they are at the present situation, and, above all, it will involve those concerned in the administration of police work and the administration of justice in a great deal of inconvenience and extra expense.
It is very convenient to have a police headquarters adjacent to and, if possible, in the same building as the magisterial court. There are two magisterial benches in the Hove Town Hall, and heretofore it has been very convenient to have the police headquarters in the same building. There is, of course, continual coming and going between the police headquarters and the magistrates' courts. From 3rd August to 3rd September last year, a test was made on this subject. It was found that in that period 166 visits were made to the magistrates' clerk's office by members of the police force, as many as 16 being made in one day. During the same period it was necessary for members of the magistrates' clerk's staff to visit the police offices on 99 occasions. It shows how inconvenient it is bound to be if these two buildings are separated by half a mile.
It is said that the cost of siting the new police headquarters on a site similar to that which it occupies at present would involve a little more expenditure than the site proposed, but the question that arises is, Who pays? Is my hon. Friend aware that the great non-county borough of Hove contributes one third of the total expenditure of the East Sussex County Council, which could not exist but for the rate precept which it takes from Hove? To all intents and purposes the expenditure would fall on the ratepayers of Hove, and if these people want their police headquarters in the municipal buildings, it is difficult to understand why authority is not given for that to be done.
The Minister has completely failed to understand the importance of local feeling in this matter and the very natural

pride which such a borough has in deciding its own affairs. Why should Hove have its police headquarters put in some place not of its own choosing but decided upon by the county council?
There has been an inquiry, which in no sense directed itself to the point at issue. It was simply a planning inquiry. My hon. Friend wrote to me about it on 2nd April this year and said:
The Minister did, of course, give full consideration to the views expressed by the council at the local inquiry, but, as you will see, from the decision letters, he came to the conclusion that there could be no valid planning objection to the Holland Road site"—
that is, the alternative site, which the Borough of Hove does not want.
That is not the issue I have been raising with the Minister. No one disputes that the alternative site is perfectly good from the planning point of view; the point is that it is not the one that the people of Hove want. They want their police headquarters in a place of their own choosing.
It is clear that the inspector who held the inquiry and made the report on which the Minister has acted has not directed his mind to that question of local pride and prejudice. He sets out in his report three of the main contentions made on behalf of the borough council and then says that the Minister had considered these and had come to the conclusion that the alternative site
has inherent advantages over the only suggested alternative site…adjoining the town hall.
That brushes aside the whole issue. We do not say that the proposal has not inherent advantages over that which the people of Hove desire. The report makes no attempt to deal with the main arguments which were put forward on behalf of the local authority. My hon. Friend has the report; perhaps he will look at the foot of the second page and at the top of the third page; there he will see the contentions of the borough council set out. In his report or conclusions, however, the inspector makes no attempt to deal with them. It is no doubt for this reason that he has directed his mind, and the Minister following him has also directed his mind, solely to what I might call the planning issue and has given no weight at all to local preference and local knowledge.
There is no doubt that the use of the alternative site will lead to considerable disadvantages of the kind which I have already described by separating the police headquarters from the magisterial courts by about half-a-mile, involving a great deal of journeying to and fro. I have already pointed out that the expense in any event will fall on the local ratepayers, and if they choose to spend their money in this way I do not see why they should not. Quite apart from that, the views of those who know the local conditions is that the site which they prefer—the town hall site—although it might involve more immediate capital expenditure, will prove more economical, in the end, because it will eliminate the journeying between the two buildings.
The Minister has professed himself to have no further powers in the matter. The attitude which he adopts is, "The inquiry has been held and I can do no more about it." I cannot be satisfied with that. The Minister of Housing is also the Minister of Local Government and, as such, it is part of his duty to try to do justice between the various organisations of local government when, as inevitably happens, they come into dispute with one another over such matters as this.
The report completely avoids the real issue of what the local feelings and preferences are. It is a report of just the kind which the Franks Committee deprecated in its recent Report. It makes it clear that the real issue has not been before the inspector and, consequently, not before the Minister, who can rely only upon the report. The fact that by Socialist legislation the police force of Hove has been absorbed into the county council is no reason for a Conservative Government making the situation still more difficult. But for that legislation the Hove police force, as it existed before the war, could have built its headquarters at any place of its own choosing without interference from the county council.
I take the view that it is the Minister's duty in matters of this kind, acting in his capacity of Minister of Local Government, to do justice between these authorities. Unless there are overwhelming reasons to the contrary, he should in such a matter come down on the side of the local authority in whose area or district the building is to be erected. It

is a matter in which the local authority concerned should have the last word.
Finally, I think the Minister responsible for local government also has a duty to protect what I might call the smaller authorities against the overriding power of the larger authorities. Or does the Minister take the view that merely because it is administratively convenient to allow the large county councils to have their way he has no duty to protect the smaller authorities? I realise that this inquiry having taken place the Minister can, of course shelter behind it, but I hope that he will not regard the matter as closed.
In conclusion, I have two suggestions to make to him. One is that he should use his influence with the East Sussex County Council that it should reconsider the matter and withdraw its objection to the Borough of Hove building its police headquarters where it wants to. The Minister has considerable influence with the local authority, and I feel sure that if he chooses to exercise it, the county council would give due weight to it, if the Minister would only point out to the county council that the smaller authority of Hove has its rights and should have preference in this case.
My alternative suggestion is that he holds an entirely different inquiry, not a mere planning inquiry such as has already taken place, but one directed towards the real issue of determining whether or not the preference which the ratepayers of Hove have for seeing the police headquarters built at the town hall is justified. I can tell him quite plainly that there is no doubt whatever that if a local vote or referendum were taken there would be overwhelming support for the plan put forward by the borough council, and that the East Sussex County Council would be heavily defeated.
I ask my right hon. Friend to give consideration to this, and to say that just because one authority is smaller in area and jurisdiction than another it should not be over-ridden by the larger.

11.3 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. R. Bevins): My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe)was good enough to communicate with my right hon. Friend some


little time ago about this subject, and then made it clear—as, indeed, he has tonight—that a good deal of the feeling that exists on this matter is due to a sense of affront felt by his friends in Hove, in that they have not had the real say as to where the police headquarters building should go.
I am bound to say to him, however, that the authority that is entitled to select the site here is the appropriate police authority, which happens to be not the Borough of Hove but the East Sussex Standing Joint Committee. That is the police authority responsible for the district of Hove and, as such, has the responsibility for saying, in the first place, where it would prefer its own premises to be located. That body having done that—obviously, after certain discussion with the local authority, as my hon. and learned Friend rightly says—the only issue is whether planning permission shall be given for the site that the police authority requires.
The issue here is a very simple one. There is no dispute whatever that a new divisional police headquarters is required in Hove. The only dispute is where that headquarters building shall go. The view of the police authority—that is, the East Sussex Standing Joint Committee—is that it should be located in a place known as Holland Road, which is, I think, near the county cricket ground, where I have seen my hon. and learned Friend's county play. The other site is at Tisbury Road, near the centre of Hove, and is preferred by the Hove local authority.
There was no agreement between the Standing Joint Committee and the Hove local authority as to which site was to be preferred, and, accordingly, there came before my right hon. Friend two planning applications. One was an application from the county council for planning permission to use the site at Holland Road for a police headquarters building, and there was a further appeal from the Hove Borough Council in respect of a planning application by a building developer who desired to erect, I think, a matter of ten houses on this same site in Holland Road.
There has been a public inquiry, and although primarily such inquiries are planning inquiries, it is nevertheless the fact that whatever the various interested

parties wish to represent at these inquiries, they are listened to and heeded by the inspector who takes them. It is rather misleading of my hon. and learned Friend to suggest that some of the considerations which bear on this matter which have wider importance were not referred to at the public inquiry or taken into account either by the inspector or by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Marlowe: I did not say they were not taken into account at the inquiry. I said that his report makes clear that he had brushed them aside and given no weight to them.

Mr. Bevins: I have studied the report and cannot accept the view that those considerations were brushed aside by the gentleman who took the inquiry.
It was represented by Hove authority that this particular building should be near the town hall and the magistrates' courts. It was argued that the course of having to go between the site proposed by the county council and the town hall and the magistrates' court would involve the authorities in a good deal of expense which would more than offset the initial saving by going to the Holland Road site. It was argued by Hove that to put this building at Holland Road would lower the standard of amenity in a good-class residential district, and finally, that the Tisbury Road site adjoining the existing town hall would be more accessible to the public. Those considerations were certainly in the inspector's mind.

Mr. Marlowe: He does not deal with them in his report.

Mr. Bevins: I do not know whether my hon. and learned Friend has had an opportunity of studying the report.

Mr. Marlowe: I have it here.

Mr. Bevins: In view of what he says, I feel fairly confident that he has not had the opportunity of reading the inspector's report but that, on the contrary, he is quoting from the official decision letter issued by my right hon. Friend. I am sorry to say that, but I am fairly certain he is giving that impression.

Mr. Marlowe: Of course, my hon. Friend is right. I am relying on the decision letter—but that is all we are provided with.

Mr. Bevins: If that is the case, I do not know by what right my hon. and learned Friend purports to quote from the report of the inspector. After all, the inspector's report is a very full document, which sets out in detailed form the evidence put forward and representations made by all parties to the inquiry. These reports are not at present published, either to the parties concerned or to members of the public or hon. Members of this House. But they are naturally, in the nature of the case, available to my right hon. Friend, and it is on the basis of that report and any other considerations which my right hon. Friend cares to take into account that he comes to his decision.
Certain other considerations were put forward by the county authority. They took the view that separation of the magistrates' court from the police building would be no disadvantage to the police, that the building in Holland Road would not be out of place, especially as it adjoins an existing telephone exchange, and they also urged that to locate this building at the rear of the town hall would involve an additional expense of at least £10,000 over the cost of the alternative proposition. After my right hon Friend had considered all these representations, all that was said by the inspector, and all he know of the case, he came to the conclusion that the right thing to do was to grant planning permission for the police headquarters in Holland Road, and to allow the developer to develop the balance, about half, of the site.
On the question of amenity, so far as appearance goes, I think it is worth while pointing out that in 1948 a planning application was made to Hove by a private building developer to build on this land, and planning permission was then given to erect two blocks of flats, to a height of 77 feet. That is worth bearing in mind. The present proposed police headquarters building will, it is true, be three storeys in height, but owing to the fall of the land at this point only two storeys will be visible from pavement level. I have had an opportunity of seeing the drawings and the designs of this proposed police building. It is contemporary in design. It is attractive. It will take up approximately half of the

site in Holland Road, and I find it hard to believe that it will interfere with the amenity of this district.
There have been complaints, I understand, that the siting of police headquarters would create undue noise in what is a relatively quiet residential district. That was alleged by the Hove authority at the inquiry, but if my hon. and learned Friend does not wish to pursue that matter, neither do I.
On the question of whether it is desirable that police headquarters should be situated within reasonable access of the town hall and the magistrates' court, all I would say to my hon. and learned Friend is that the Home Office view is that there are, generally speaking good reasons for keeping a police building away from the magistrates' court building.
On the question of cost, which is of very great importance, my hon. and learned Friend referred to the difference in the cost between the proposal of the Hove authority and the proposal which has now been approved by my right hon. Friend. At the inquiry, the difference was put at a figure of £10,000. If we had preferred the Tisbury Road site, it would have involved the demolition of, I think, eight three-storey Victorian houses which are in very good condition and worth about £3,000 apiece. My estimate, for what it is worth, is that the proposition advocated by my hon. and learned Friend would have cost not £10,000 but nearer £20,000 more than the proposition which has been approved by my right hon. Friend.
It is true, as my hon. and learned Friend says, that a good deal of this money in any case will be found by the ratepayers of Hove, but it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government even now to economise in public expenditure, both capital and current, as far as possible, and really my right hon. Friend could see no reason why in a case of this sort, which is not offensive from an amenity point of view, he should condone the excessive spending of public money.
I listened carefully to what my hon. and learned Friend said, and I would very much like to be able to reassure him and to say that we are prepared to go back to the East Sussex County Council and make representations to them in the sense that he indicated. But


I must say that having been into this in the greatest of detail, although I am prepared to re-examine what my hon. and learned Friend has said and bring it to the attention of my right hon. Friend, I cannot in all honesty think that I should be justified in giving an undertaking of that sort.

Mr. Marlowe: In the moment that remains I can only say that I regard my

hon. Friend's reply as entirely unsatisfactory. I do not see why a Conservative Government should be implementing Socialist legislation which interferes with the local freedom of people to make their own choice.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes past Eleven o'clock.